TRIVEDI BUS SERVICE Vs. SALMA BEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on IA No.824/2017, an application for granting stay and also on admission.

(2.) In this second round of litigation, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30/01/2017 passed by State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior (in short "STAT") in Revision No.327/2016 (Annexure-P/21) whereby order dated 26/08/2016 passed by Regional Transport Authority, Ujjain (in short "RTA") in case No.55/2015 granting Stage Carriage Permit (in short "SCP") (Annexure-P/9) to respondent No.1 has been confirmed.

(3.) Facts in brief are that the petitioner who is a Stage Carriage Passenger Transport business concern was allotted SCP No.36/94 and 47/89-90 from Mahidpur to Jaora a distance of 75 kms. Respondent No.1, a competing operator, applied for and was granted SCP for plying the bus on the same route. The order was challenged by the Petitioner in W.P. No.1315/2016, which was allowed and SCP granted in favour of respondent No.1 was cancelled on the ground that the same was granted by three members board while the Board had already been dissolved vide notification dated 05/11/2015 and RTA was authorized for the purpose. The matter was remanded back to the RTA, Ujjain for reconsideration vide order dated 05/04/2016 (Annexure-P/2). After remand, case No.55/15 was notified in Agenda dated 24/07/2016. The petitioner filed objection to the application of respondent No.1 mainly on the ground that the time cycle granted to respondent No.1 was in confrontation with the time cycle already granted to the petitioner vide SCP No.36/94 & 47/89-90 and it is affecting three permanent SCP granted to the petitioner. The other grounds taken by the petitioner were that the SCP was granted to respondent No.1 without considering the time cycle of the SCP already in operation, respondent No.1 did not comply with the provisions of Rule 72 (3) of the M.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 (for short Rules, 1994), the vehicle proposed for the SCP applied for was not free and was already covered under SCP No. 36/11 issued to respondent No.1, applied SCP was not in the interests of the public at large etc.