PRAHLAD DAS GUPTA Vs. TANEJA BUS SERVICE SHEOPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two private transporters operating in Chambal Division are locked in a legal battle to settle old scores. Indeed, it is a specific grievance of the petitioner that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter, STAT or Tribunal) is applying different standards in dealing with cases of the two operators in different proceedings in the same matter of "extension" of a route in the existing permits, under S.57(8) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for short, the Act.

(2.) Even at this stage, we may at once say that the Tribunal cannot be faulted if it has taken a different view on a subsequent date an the interpretation of the statutory provision and an that ground alone, the impugned order is not liable to be set aside. No mala fide can be attributed to the Tribunal on that score. Parties are entitled to invite us to interpret any statutory provision for determination of any dispute and our interpretation will be binding not only on the parties, but also on the subordinate courts and tribunals under our supervisory jurisdiction, as contemplated under Art.227 of the Constitution.

(3.) We propose to state first few admitted facts necessary for resolving the legal controversy. Both operators, the petitioner and the first respondent, have regular permits for different routes, but those relevant to the present controversy are - Manpur-Khuhanjapur route via Sheopur and Baroda, operated by the petitioner and Baroda-Khatoli via Sheopur, operated by first respondent. Between Baroda and Sheopur, there is evidently an overlapping of services provided by the two operators and what has given rise to the grievance in this case is purported "extension" granted in revision by STAT to the first respondent in respect of a portion of the route between Baroda and Sheopur.