DALURAM TARACHAND Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GWALIOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution. By this petition the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal Gwalior in Appeal No. 113 of 1974 decided on 31-12-1975.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner he was granted and permit for plying a passenger bug between Sendhwa and Warla via Hingwa in the year 1972. According to him this route in accordance with the map which he has filed along with the petition. He alleges that thereafter he approached the Regional Transport authority by saying that the route between Hingwa and Warla was not motorable. He therefore applied for a diversion of this route from Sendhwa to warla via Balwadi. This application of his for diversion was registered in the regional Transport Authority Indore as Case No. 88 of 1974. According to the petitioner the Regional Transport Authority, after following the procedure laid down in Section 57 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act passed an order on 27-9-1974 and allowed the diversion as prayed for by the petitioner. Against this order of the Regional Transport Authority the respondent No. 2 preferred a revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal Gwalior, who, after hearing the parties allowed the petition and set aside the order passed by the Regional transport Authority. It is against this the present petition has been filed.

(3.) IT was contended on behalf of the petitioner that when the permit was granted to the petitioner he immediately thereafter drew the attention of the regional Transport Authority that part of the route is not motorable and repeatedly invited his attention of this aspect of the matter. Ultimately the regional Transport Authority, after following the procedure prescribed under section 57 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act permitted the alteration of the route and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal set aside that order on an assumption that the diversion of the route amounted to grant of a new permit. It was also contended that the appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the regional Transport Authority holding that part of the route is covered in scheme No 64 for nationalization. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in fact this part of the route was not covered under Scheme No. 64 and therefore there is an error apparent on the record.