1. Since common question of law and fact is involved in these writ petitions, they are heard analogously and are being decided by this common order. (For the sake of convenience, W.P. (Art. 227) No.653/2014 is taken as lead case.)

2. Respondent No.2 had made an application for grant of stage carriage permit in a route from Rajnandgaon to Bailadila via Durg, Raipur, Abhanpur, Dhamtari, Kanker, Kondagaon and Jagdalpur, which was rejected by the learned Regional Transport Authority by order dated 17-7-2009; questioning that order, the said respondent preferred an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT) and the STAT by order dated 9-3-2011 allowed the appeal holding that the Regional Transport Authority has no jurisdiction to fix the time limit for frequency of buses. Questioning that order, the petitioners herein preferred writ petition before this Court bearing W.P. (Art. 227) No. 2284/2011, that was granted by this Court by order dated 25-4-2013 and directed the STAT to consider the application afresh in light of Section 71 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act of 1988') against which respondent No.2 herein preferred special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court of India dismissed the special leave to appeal, however, allowed the operation of vehicles till the disposal of matter by the STAT. Now, the STAT by its impugned order again held that the State Government has not promulgated any rules fixing time limit for grant of permit between the two buses and upheld the stage carriage permit granted to respondent No.2 by the Regional Transport Authority on 21-4-2016. Assailing legality, validity and correctness of that order, the instant writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioners herein in which return and rejoinder have been filed by the parties.

3. Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the order passed by the STAT runs contrary to the order of the High Court remanding the matter to the STAT, as such, the orders dated 9-12-2005 and 19-12-2005 passed by the Regional Transport Authority are binding upon the parties and therefore time limit can be fixed for grant of permits in respect of two buses in a given route. In the circumstances, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

4. Mr. Ashish Surana, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No.1, submits that no notification has been issued by the State Government prescribing the time limit for grant of stage carriage permit for two vehicles in a particular route as it has been done away with under the Act of 1988.

5. Mr. Shailendra Kumar Bajpai and Mr. Sudeep Johri, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, would also take the stand of the State Government and support the impugned order.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

7. Undisputedly, the application of respondent No.2 was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority relying upon the orders dated 9-12-2005 and 19-12-2005 fixing the time limit of minimum 15 minutes for grant of stage carriage permit for a route which was reversed by the STAT which this Court had set aside and remitted the matters to the STAT which was assailed in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upholding the order of this Court allowed the operation of vehicles till the order of the STAT and after the order passed by the Supreme Court, again the STAT has taken view that under Section 72(2)(v) of the Act of 1988, the Regional Transport Authority at the time of granting stage carriage permit has jurisdiction to impose a condition attach to the permit that the stage carriage shall be operated within such margins of deviation from the approved time-table as specified by the said authority and further held that there is no such notification by the State Government prescribing time limit between the two vehicles in