SATYA NARAYAN Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal dated November 3, 1980 (Annexure

(2.) ). Briefly the facts may be now narrated. On March 15, 1980 the Regional Transport Appellate Authority by resolution No. 29, item No. 26 dated March 6, 1980 rejected the application of Pritam Singh and Shiv Kumar for grant of non -temporary permit on the Sangaria Indipura route. It was granted to Satyanarayan. Both Pritam Singh and Shiv Kumar filed an appeal before the S.T.A.T. The S.T.A.T. accepted the appeal and by rejecting the application of Satyanarayan, ordered that the permit be granted to Pritam Singh. 2. Mr. Maheshwari, learned Counsel for Satyanarayan has challenged the order of this Tribunal on various grounds. Firstly, it was submitted that his client was a displaced operator and no fraud was committed by him in getting the permit. That the R.R.T.A. granted the permit to his client on second import tant consideration that his vehicle was of 1978 model. The vehicle of Pritam Singh was only of 1974 model. In view of this even if the first ground of displaced operator was held to be not sustainable, yet the second ground of a later model was itself sufficient. The S.T.A.T. therefore, should not have reversed the order of R.T.A. It was also submitted that an allegation of fraud could not have been considered in appeal as it may be separate matter of complaint before R.T.A. for cancellation of permit under Section 60, Clause (1), Sub -clause (D) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Mr. Maheshwari placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 2333 and A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 800. In support of his contention that a later model should be preferred while granting the permit, he placed reliance upon decision of M.P. High Court in A.I.R. 1959 M.P. 320 and Rajasthan High Court in A.I.R. 1969 Raj. page 173, in respect of his contention that the ground of fraud cannot be considered in appeal by the Tribunal.

(3.) I have given a thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions on the learned Counsel of the parties. The fact that the application of the petitioner Satyanarayan contained a note of 'Displaced Operator' is not in dispute. Again, the fact that one of the grounds for granting permit to the petitioner by the R.T.A. that he was 'Displaced Operator' is equally patent on record. The finding of the S.T.A.T. that Satyanarayan was not a displaced operator is also correct and cannot be seriously disputed.