SUSHIL MADAN BAIRAGI Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges an order of State Transport Appellate Tribunal (Annex. P-9), granting a stage carriage permit to respondent No. 3 Madanlal Chhabra.

(2.) The petitioner Sushil Bairagi as also respondent No. 3 Madanlal Chhabra are bus operators. The latter had made an application, in addition to applications by some others for grant of a stage carriage permit over route Antri to Neemach. R. T. A. Ujjain by order dated 10-4-92 (Annex. P-3) had granted that permit to one Prabhulal Patidar, rejecting the applications of others, including that of respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 carried an appeal to State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short S.T.A.T.). The S.T.A.T. by the order dated 23-7-1992 (Annex. P-9) held the said appeal to be not maintainable against grant in favour of Prabhulal Patidar. The appeal was however partly allowed by that order by granting a stage carriage permit also to respondent No. 3.

(3.) The petitioner's case in this petition is that he holds a stage carriage permit over route Chokadi to Neemuch, which has common portion between - Manasa to Neemuch with the route Antri to Neemuch for which a stage carriage permit has been granted to respondent No. 3 by the impugned order of the S.T.A.T. (Annex. P-9). The impugned order is challenged on the ground that respondent No. 3 already held 4 stage carriage permits and one temporary permit, making in all 5 stage carriage permits. The grant of further stage carriage permit by the impugned order amounted to grant of a sixth stage carriage permit to him, which was violation of ceiling fixed by Section 71(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, providing that stage carriage permits exceedings 5 to an individual and exceeding 10 to a company shall not be granted. The challenge is also made on the ground that S.T.A.T. by impugned order had granted timings with respect to respondent No. 3's permit which were just identical with the 'timings of the petitioner's service over the common route and that was done without giving any hearing to the petitioner.