M M ASATI Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is seeking a prayer for the quashing of the order dated 6-6-1970 (Annexure-A) passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur (respondent No. 2) and the order dated 21-5-1973 (Annexure-E) passed by the State Transport Appellate Authority, Gwalior (respondent No. 1).

(2.) Brief facts leading to the present petition are that the Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur (respondent No. 2) after determination of the scope for the grant of one return trip permanent stage carriage permit for Balaghat Lanji via Rajegaon and Kirnapur route invited applications for the purpose under Section 57 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). It may be mentioned here that the said route is intra-regional lying wholly within the State of Madhya Pradesh. In pursuance of the notification, the petitioner and two others applied for the fresh grant and their applications were published in accordance with law under Section 57 (3) of the Act. The respondent No. 3, Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation did not furnish any objection to the grant of stage carriage permit under Section 57 (4) of the Act. On 6-61970, when the applications came up for hearing before respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 3 raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the authority has no jurisdiction to grant permit to a private operator on the route as a Scheme No. 66 prepared by respondent No. 1 for inter-statal route Balaghat- Amgaon lying within the territories of the States of Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra has been published as approved scheme under Section 68-D of the Act which was coming into operation with effect from 15-7-1970 and the route for which applications were being considered although lay exclusively within the State of Madhya Pradesh was a part of the said inter-statal route. The objection prevailed with the authority and all the applications for the fresh grant were rejected vide order dated 6-6-1970 (Annexure-A). Out of the three applicants, only the petitioner preferred appeal No. 333 of 1970 before respondent No. 1. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal on the ground that the order of respondent No. 2 would be deemed to be under Section 68-F (2) of the Act, and, therefore, no appeal lay against such an order in view of the provisions of Section 68-F (3) of the Act. The petitioner has now come up before this Court challenging both the orders passed by the transport authorities.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Scheme No. 66 as approved and published relates to inter-statal route and operation by private operators on the route lying exclusively within the State of Madhya Pradesh has been saved. That is to say, in other words the scheme does not relate to intra-regional route like the present one-Balaghat-Lanji, which lies exclusively within the State of Madhya Pradesh. That being so, both the transport authorities committed an error in the exercise of their jurisdiction in refusing to consider the application of the petitioner on merit but rejecting the same on the basis that in view of the Scheme No. 66 having been approved and coming into operation with effect from 15-7-1970 no stage carriage permit can be granted for the route to a private operator. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 contended that the orders passed by the transport authorities are correct. According to him, although the Scheme No. 66 is with regard to inter-statal route, it excludes operation by private operators on the basis of a fresh grant by the respondent No. 2. The scheme has- allowed operation of the route by the existing private operators only.