MANOJ KUMAR Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, by this writ petition, have challenged the order dated October 11, 1991, passed by the Member, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, by which the operation of the order dated August, 1, 1991, passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner, granting non -temporary stage carriage permit in favour of the petitioners on Suratgrah - Mile 80 route was stayed.

(2.) THE petitioners were granted non -temporary stage carriage permits on Suratgarh -Mile 80 via Piperan -236 R.D. -Bhopalpura etc. route by the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner, by its order dated August 1, 1991. In pursuance to the order dated August 1, 1991 Annexure.4 on record), the petitioners obtained the permit and started plying their vehicles. Against the order dated August 1, 1991, passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner, Ram Kumar (the respondent No. 3) preferred a revision petition before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Alongwith the revision petition, an application for grant of stay was, also, moved by Mr. Ram Kumar and the learned Member, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, by its order dated October 11, 1991, stayed the operation of the order dated August 1, 1991, till further orders.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Member, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, stayed the operation of the order only on the ground that two stay orders were passed by the High Court in two writ petitions. His contention is that so far as the stay order, passed by the High Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5145 of 1990 (Om Prakash v. Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner, and Ors.) is concerned, by which the Regional Transport Authority was restrained from issuing any permit, it was never placed on record before the Regional Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authority had no knowledge of that order and, therefore, passing of the stay order, which was not communicated to the authority concerned, will not deprive the Authority from passing any order. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, so far as the second stay order is concerned, by that order, the Division Bench of this Court allowed the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority to consider the applications of various applicants on the route but they were restrained only from issuing the permit and that order has, also, comes to an end as the writ petition, filed by the petitioner in that case has been dismissed. His contention, therefore, is that the order dated October 11,1991, may be quashed and the petitioners may be allowed to ply their buses on the routes in question. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3, on the other hand, has supported the order, passed by the Member, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, and a preliminary objection has, also, been taken by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 that a joint writ petition is not maintainable because the petitioners were granted non -temporary stage carriage permits on two separate applications and their cases depend upon different facts and the writ petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed on the ground of mis -joinder of the parties.