PREM NARAIN Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been preferred by the petitioner Prem Narain for quashing the impugned order (Annex. P -9) He claimed that he was a small bus' operator and was operating buses under the permit granted by the authorities concerned. He had applied for a stage carriage permit on the routes (1) Ashoknagar to Kadwaya via Saraskhedi, Isagarh, Gohora and Manethi for 2 R.T. daily and (2) Ashoknagar to Isagarh for one R.T. daily vide Annexure P -1. He had furnished all the certificates, documents and authenticated route map in compliance of rule 72 (3) of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994. He had deposited Rs. 500/ - under rule 145 of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994. The substance of the application (Annex. P -I) was. notified on office notice board for inviting objections. M.P. State Road Transport Corporation filed formal objections. He was granted stage carriage permit vide order dated 27.8.97 (vide Annexure P -2) for a period of five years i.e. upto 2.9.2002 (Annex. P -3). He started the operation under the said permit from 3.9.97. The respondents 3 and 4, who never filed any objection, filed a joint Revision No. 1021/97 before the S.T.A.T. against the said order (Annex. P -2) and prayed for stay. The petitioner filed -reply to the stay application vide Annex. P -8. The revision petition was allowed by the S.T.A.T. after hearing the parties on 3.1 0.97 (Annex. P -9) holding that the routes for which permit was granted had three terminal and according to the definition given under section 2 (38) of the M.V. Act, no permit could be granted which had three terminee. This order has been challenged by the petitioner.

(2.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that under section 70 of the M.V. Act, an application for stage carriage permit can be made giving the particulars mentioned therein. The learned counsel drew my attention to caluse (a), which provides:

(3.) THE main arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties show that the important question that needs consideration is as to whether one application could be given for two routes and whether the petitioner was required to pay different amounts for different permits. In order to consider the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we have to look to the provision of section 70 of the M. V. Act which makes a provision for application for stage carriage permit. The section relevant for our purpose runs as follows: