DINESH KUMAR VARMA Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO private bus -operators have locked horns in this legal battle but we also heard Shri D. V. Nigudkar, Standing Counsel for the M.P. State Road Transport Corporation, because of the general importance of the question mooted for our decision in this matter. Shri R.D. Jain consented to act as amicus curiae and we also heard him and petitioner's counsel, Shri Arvind Dudawat. Oral hearing was concluded on 15.2.1993 but Shri J.P. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the main contestant respondent No.3, also filed written argument on 18.2.1993.

(2.) ON facts there is little dispute and indeed only few facts are to be stated to decide the important question of law on which counsel addressed us extensively. The petitioner is owner of only one vehicle of 1992 model for which he holds stage carriage permit No. 237/92 for the route Pichore to Rajgarh valid up -to 19.11.1997. While the petitioner is a new -comer in the trade and his permit is a fresh grant, Respondent No.3 is holding stage - carriage permit No. P. St.S.147/70 for the same route which was a permit "renewed" under Motor Vehicle Act, 1939, for short, 'Old Act, and was valid upto 17.11.1991. He made an application under section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short 'New Act,' for renewal of the said permit. Admittedly, the said respondent holds another nine stage -carriage permits and it is also averred that in the names of his sons he holds 15 other stage -carriage permits. In the meeting held on 16.9.1992 the Regional Transport Authority, Bhopal, for short 'R.T.A " heard all applications for fresh permits and for renewals for the route in question and by its order passed on 17.11.1992 the said Authority rejected the renewal application of Respondent No.3 and granted to the petitioner a fresh stage -carriage permit for the said route for the period from 20.11.1992 to 19.11.1997.

(3.) AN appeal was taken by respondent No.3 to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior, wherein the petitioner was imp -leaded as respondent No.2, challenging the R.T.A's decision aforesaid. The appeal was' allowed by the said Tribunal vide its order dated 10.12.1992 renewing the permit of respondent No.3 and also confirming at the same time grant of the fresh permit to the petitioner on the condition that the R.T.A shall refix timing for the petitioner. Reliance was pleased on a decision of the Apex Court in Gurucharan Singh's case (AIR 1992 SC 180) in rendering the order impugned before us in this matter. It is submitted by Shri Dudawat that in Gurucharan Singh's case the decision was rendered on the interpretation only of sub -sections (2) and (4) of section 217 of the New Act and there was no occasion for their Lordships to examine the scope and purport of section 71 (4) of the said Act though that really has crucial relevance to the entitlement of third respondent inasmuch as it negates expressly his claim. Indeed, it is also contended that the main ground on which the R.T.A refused to grant renewal of the permit of respondent No.3 was the legislative command of the said section 71 (4), restricting its power to be exercised, whether for issuing a fresh permit or renewing an existing permit.