DEVA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner submitted an application for grant of inter-regional permit under Section 70 (1) read with Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short"the Act of 1988") on 11-9-2002 for the route between Loonkaransar and Karansar. At that time, no route was opened by the State Government from Loonkaransar to Karansar for which the petitioner sought permit by his application dated 10-10-2002. However, the District Transport Officer, Bikaner proposed for opening of the same route Loonkaransar to Karansar vide his proposal dated 19-2-2002, therefore, the application of the petitioner for the route was after the proposal sent by the District Transport Officer for opening the said route. The State Government opened the route vide notification dated 28-9-2002. The petitioner's application though filed before opening of the route was considered by the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) and permit was granted to the petitioner for the said route on 31-12-2003. The respondent No. 4 Sawai Singh preferred a revision petition before the State Transport Appellate Authority (STAT) against the order of RTA dated 19-10-2003. In revision two grounds were taken by the respondent No. 4. One was that the petitioner's vehicle was under-model. That ground was rejected by the revisional authority. The second ground for challenge was that the petitioner submitted application for grant of permit before opening of route by the State Government, therefore, that application, being pre-mature, could not have been considered for grant of permit for a route which came into existence only subsequent to filing of the application by the petitioner. On that ground, the respondent No. 4 succeeded and the STAT by the impugned order dated 12-11-2003 cancelled the permit of the petitioner's vehicle.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the change made by the Act of 1988 was considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mithilesh Garg, etc. etc. v. Union of India and others etc. reported in AIR 1992 SC 443. The Hon'ble Apex Court clearly held that the Parliament in its wisdom has completely defaced the features referred in the Act of 1939 and Sections 47 and 57 of the old Act has been completely done away with by this Act of 1989. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that there is no similar provision to that of Sections 47 and 57 under the new Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court further noticed the purpose for bringing the Act of 1988 and held that the object is to regularise the grant of permits which provides that the transporter shall ordinarily not refuse to grant an application for permit made at any time under the Act of 1988. In view of the above radical change in the law and looking to the aims and objects of repealing the Act of 1939 and enacting the Act of 1988, it is clear that the intention of Parliament was to review the grant of permit so as to provide better facility of transportation to the public at large and for that purpose, now after enactment of the Act of 1988, any number of persons can apply for grant of permit and may obtain permits for plying the vehicles on the route. There shall be no limit for the vehicles. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, now no other can have grievance for awarding permit for plying a vehicle on route as the other can also obtain permit for plying the vehicle on the route.