MAHENDRA GUPTA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred being aggrieved by the order dated 13.06.2013 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior, in Appeal No.41/2012 seeking following reliefs:

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that one application was filed on 18.09.2011 by the applicant for regular Stage Carriage permit for the route Tikamgarh to Datia. The application was filed in accordance with Rule 72(1) of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 alongwith necessary documents. The aforesaid route is an inter-state route and is a part of reciprocal agreement between the State of Madhya Pradesh and the State of Uttar Pradesh. Earlier, the route was the part of a Scheme. After the denotification of the Scheme, the route was opened for private operators. The route was shown in Schedule A at Serial No.12 as Tikamgarh to Datia via Orchha and Jhansi. In Column No.5, the entire distance of the route was disclosed as 126 kms. permits which were to be issued were eight in number as shown in Column No.9. It was mentioned in application by the applicant that vehicle No. MP07/MG/8282, Model 2011 having a capacity of 50+2 passengers was being proposed by him. Out of eight permits four were already granted.

(3.) Being dissatisfied by the order dated 09.04.2012 passed by the State Transport Authority, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P., Gwalior. The appeal No.41/2012 was registered and the same was dismissed on 13.06.2013 (Annexure P-9) on the ground that respondents were better in position in comparison to the petitioner before the State Transport Authority. The entire documents and evidence available on record were properly appreciated by the authority. The cases of the respondents were better than the petitioner. It was also held by the learned Appellate Tribunal that the petitioner has not mentioned via routes in his application. Stand by vehicle which was proposed by the petitioner was old in comparison to respondent no.6. Petitioner is residing at Gwalior whereas the respondents are residing at Tikamgarh and Gwalior, therefore, they have better position in comparison to the petitioner. The appeal was also dismissed on the ground that the objectors who had filed their objections in regard to the application of the petitioner were not made party in the appeal. Thus, on the ground of non-joinder of the necessary parties also the appeal was dismissed.