DURGA DEVI Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the order dated 21-10-1993 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

(2.) In Udaipur Region, there is an existing route known as Udaipur - Sayara extended upto Palasama as shown in the rough sketch map, which has been placed on the record as Annex. 1. The petitioner submitted an application before the R.T.A., Udaipur for grant of a non-temporary stage carriage permit on the Udaipur to Sayara extended upto Palasma existing route via Iswal, Kelwada, Bhanpura, Sayara. The R.T.A. directed its Secretary for sending a Circulation note. The Secretary to the R.T.A., Udaipur in pursuance of the order of the R.T.A., Udaipur sent a Circulation note to the R.T.A., Udaipur which came to be considered by the authority on 13-7-1993. The R.T.A., Udaipur granted a non-temporary stage permit in favour of the petitioner on 13-7-1993. The petitioner in pursuance of the aforesaid grant made by the R.T.A.. Udaipur availed the said non-temporary stage carriage permit on 24-7-1993 and started plying her vehicle on the route on 25-7-1993. The petitioner apprehended that this grant is likely to be challenged by some interested operators, therefore, he filed a caveat before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur. The apprehension of the petitioner came true when the respondent No. 3 who is an operator of Udaipur-Kelwara route filed a revision petition on 16-8-1993 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal against the grant made in favour of the petitioner. The matter was argued by both the learned counsel and ultimately after hearing both the parties the State Transport Appellate Tribunal vide its order dated 21-10-1993 set aside the grant on two grounds that under Section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 there is a draft scheme of Udaipur-Kelwara which overlaps the present route and scheme is law, therefore, no permit can be granted on this route which overlaps this draft scheme. Secondly it was held that the petitioner has been granted a permit on a route which was not applied for by the petitioner. On both these counts the State Transport Appellate Tribunal allowed the revision petition filed by the respondent No. 3 and set aside the grant made in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved against this order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. It is also pointed out by the petitioner that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in this connection heavily relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Rama Krishan Verma and etc. etc. v. State of U.P. and etc. etc., AIR 1992 SC 1888: (1992 AIR SCW 2141) which is not applicable in the present case.

(3.) A reply has been filed by the respondent No. 3 and he has contested the position.