RAJENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dtd. 14/3/2024 issued by respondent No.3 whereby the application filed by petitioner for replacement of Bus vehicle No.MP-09-FA-0781 having seating capacity 36 2 covered by a regular stage carriage permit No.07/99 Dhar proposed M.P.-09-FA-2754 being a seating capacity 36.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that since the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred as STAT) is not functioning, the petitioner has no remedy, but to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent No.3 has erred while rejecting the application of the petitioner for replacement of the vehicle only on the ground of seating capacity of the vehicle. He submits that as per the provisions of Sec. 83 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the holder of a permit may, with the permission of the authority by which the permit was granted, replace any vehicle covered by the permit by any other vehicle of the same nature. The Rule 84 of Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules enumerates the grounds for rejection of the application for replacement. The ground of seating capacity is not a ground for rejection of application for replacement. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on an order passed by STAT, Gwalior dtd. 27/12/2022 in the case of Prakash Chand Jain vs. RTA, Indore (Appeal No.123/2022).