VIJAY BAJAJ Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petition on being aggrieved by the order dated 6/2/14 as well as 27/4/13 as per Annexures P/1 and P/4 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior, in Revision No.218/13 and by the Regional Transport Authority, Sagar, i.e. respondent No.2, herein, praying for following reliefs:

(2.) On going through the pleadings and averments, it emerges that the petitioner is a holder of regular stage carriage permit bearing No.14/Damoh/2005-06 on Hatta to Jabalpur via Bangaon Damoh Abhana, Taijghar Tandukheda Pandajhir Patan Nunsar Route for one trip which is valid up to 30th June, 2016. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.3, namely, Karan Singh Parihar moved before the RTA for seeking two permits to ply bus from Damoh to Hatta via Palar, Bangaon, Luhari and Damoh to Jabalpur via Abhana, Naohata, Gabera, Simgrampur, Gubra, Katangi by submitting one application vide Annexure-P/2 dated 11/1/12 and proposing his vehicle bearing registration No.MP34 P-0138 for both permits.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that at the time of consideration of the application in question no heed was paid to the provisions contemplated in Rule 72(3) of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 and further to the Notification dated 24/11/10 which prescribed the method for seeking requisite permit and production of necessary documents at the time of submission of the application. It is submitted that the learned RTO in the absence of having such materials and failure on the part of the respondent No.3 to comply with the conditions under the relevant provisions, the permit was granted in his favour vide Annexure-P/3 which is valid up to 31/7/2018. It is submitted that by granting the permit to the respondent No.3, the authority itself has closed the eyes and violated the provisions of law and on revision against the order passed by the RTO, the appellate authority also failed to appreciate the objection raised by the petitioner and consider the law, hence by preferring the present petition, it is prayed that both the orders be quashed. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavily reliance on the provisions of Rule 70 as well as Rule 72(1)(a) of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994. Further reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Vivek Dwivedi Vs. Prem Narain, 1999 AIR(MP) 1) to contend that the orders are not sustainable in law.