SHEELCHAND AND CO Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will also govern Miscellaneous Petition No. 95 of 1963.

(2.) THE petitioner Sheelchand and Co. 's application for the grant of a stage carriage permit for Shujalpur-Bhopal route was rejected by the Regional Transport authority, Bhopal. It was, however, granted in. appeal by the' State Transport appellate Authority. While granting the permit applied for, the Appellate Authority made it conditional on the petitioner putting up a bus of 1962 model on the route. The other petitioner Suganchand Sheelchand and Company's application for the grant of a stage carriage permit for Sironj-Bhopal route was also similarly granted by the State Transport Appellate Authority and on the same condition. Both the petitioners now challenge the validity of the conditions attached to their permits, and pray for the issue of writs of certiorari for quashing them.

(3.) IT was argued by Shri Sen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, that each of the petitioners had been granted "p. St. S. " permit and not "p. St. P. " permit; that while on a "p. St. P. " permit, in relation to a particular stage carriage a condition of the year of manufacture of the vehicle could be imposed, no such condition could be attached to a "p. St. S. " permit which entitled the holder of the permit, to use any of his vehicles without any qualification and that the condition imposed by the Appellate Authority while granting the permits was not any of the conditions enumerated in Clauses (i) to (xxii) of Section 48 (3) of the Motor vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), nor was it any "prescribed condition" falling under Clause (xxiii) of the said provision. Learned counsel proceeded to say that even Form-G of 'certificate of Registration given in Schedule i to the Act did not require any vehicle to be specified by the year of its manufacture and that the Rules under the Act did not also lay down such specification of stage carriages. In support of his argument, learned counsel relied on Mangilal v. Appellate Tribunal of State Transport Authority, AIR 1957 Raj 167.