An existing operator has locus standi to file a revision under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order of the Transport Authorities granting permit.

( 1 ) PETITIONERS who are the existing operators holding stage carriage permits, have by means of these writ petitions challenged the orders, passed by the Regional Transport Authorities (hereinafter referred to as the RTA) granting stage carriage permits for their routes.

( 2 ) IN our opinion the petitioners have an alternative remedy of revision under S. 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the impugned orders. These writ petitions as such are liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Learned counsel for the petitioners have however, in this connection, invited our attention to the order dt. 21-3-1991, passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Tribunal ). Whereby a revision against the order of the R. T. A. granting permit was dismissed on the ground that an existing operator has no locus standi in the matter of grant of permits inasmuch as he has no right to be heard at the stage of grant of permit. For this purpose the Appellate Tribunal has relied on a Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Secretary R. T. A. v. E. Rama Rao, AIR 1991 AP 11. In view of the said decision of the Appellate Tribunal, it has been argued that revision will not be entertained by the Appellate Tribunal.

( 3 ) ON the question as to whether an existing operator can maintain a revision under S. 90 of the Act against the order of the Transport Authorities granting permit, we have heard Sarva Sri L. P. Naithani, C. P. Ghildiyal, A. D. Saunders and A. R. Dubey, who have argued that such a revision at the instance of the existing operator is maintainable. Learned Standing Counsel, who has appeared for the State, has also taken the stand that a revision by an existing operator the order of the RTA granting permit is maintainable and he has agreed with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

( 4 ) THAT Act provides for liberal grant of permits and excluded the participation of existing operators in the proceedings pertaining to grant of permits. In view of the provisions of the Act an existing operator can neither oppose the grant of permits on the ground that his rights under Arts. 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India will be affected, for these Articles do not confer any right of monopoly on him, nor can he challenge the order of the transport authorities granting permits on the ground that his income will be adversely affected by induction of more operators on his route. The policy of the liberal grant of permits contained in the Act has been upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India, (1991) JT SC 447. But while granting permits the transport authorities have to take into consideration relevant factors, some of which have been highlighted by the Supreme Court in paragraph 14 of its judgment in the aforesaid case of Mithilesh Garg. In view of the provisions of S. 71 (2) of the Act authorities have also to keep in mind while granting permits that the provisions of the Act relating to the speed at which the vehicles may be driven are not contravened. The area or route cannot be permitted to be converted into a racing ground for heavy vehicles in order to pick up more passengers enroute and thereby exposing both the person and property of the public to great danger. Transport authorities while granting permits exercise quasi judicial powers and have to apply their minds to each applicant before granting him permit. They are not to exercise their statutory flowers of granting permits in a mechanical manner. In this connection the relevant extract of the Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Mithilesh Garg (supra) as is contained in paragraph 14 of the judgment is reproduced below at page 452 (of AIR) :"the petitioners have further contended that the conditions of roads, social status of the applicants, possibility of small operators being eliminat