The relevant date for considering applications is the date of consideration, not the date of application. The Court emphasized the need for a liberal approach in condoning delay to ensure substantial justice.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Shiv Ram Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondents No.1 to 3, Sri G.K. Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Greesh Kumar Malviya for private respondent Nos.4 and 5 and Sri Shek Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.6.

2. These are four connected writ petitions which are in regard to the dispute among the private bus operators for inter state route known as Datia-Chatarpur-via-Jhansi Naugaon. Writ petition nos. 7780 of 2019 and 9058 of 2019 have been filed assailing the order dated 09.05.2019 passed in Appeal No. 28 of 2015 by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U.P. at Lucknow (hereinafter referred as STAT), while writ petition no. 6340 of 2020 assails the order dated 27.02.2020 passed by the STAT passed in Appeal No. 33 of 2015. While in writ petition no. 17224 of 2019 a civil misc. recall application has been filed by one Tanveer Ahamad for recalling the order dated 01.11.2019 passed by this Court.

3. As the controversy raised in all four connected writ petitions are similar, thus, these petitions are heard together and decided by a common order with the consent of counsel for the parties.

4. Facts in brief for better appreciation of the controversy are herein stated as under;

5. That within the jurisdiction of State Transport Authority there is a route known as Datia-Chatarpur-via-Jhansi Naugaon route. Total length of the route is 158 kilometres out of which 87 kilometres lie within the jurisdiction of State of U.P., while 71 kilometres stretch in the jurisdiction of State of M.P.

6. For providing transport facilities to the public of inter state route a reciprocal agreement was arrived between the State of U.P. and State of M.P. on 21.11.2006 which was published in the gazette. According to the agreement, route at serial no. 86 provided for ten permits with twenty trips to be allotted to the private bus operators of State of U.P. Pursuant to which several applications were filed for grant of permits for the route by the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents.

7. For the first time, on 17.03.2011 the applications came up for consideration before the STA, and the authority rejected all the applications on the ground that some of the information in column of form no. S.R. 20 was not filled by the applicants. Against the decision of STA, appeals were filed before the STAT and vide order dated 21.02.2013 all the appeals filed by the different applicants were allowed and matter was remitted to the STA for reconsideration.

8. The order of STAT was subject matter of challenge before this Court through various writ petitions, being writ petition nos. 13684 of 2013, 13686 of 2013, 13689 of 2013, 13687 of 2013 and 12157 of 2013, on the ground that power of the STAT was co-extensive with that of STA and it should have decided the matter itself without remitting the matter to the STA. On 5/12-3/2013 all the writ petitions were allowed by this Court and matter was remitted to the STAT who was required to decide the same on merits. STAT on 10.05.2013 dismissed all the appeals. Against the said decision several writ petitions being writ petition nos. 29556 of 2013, 30406 of 2013, 30404 of 2013, 30396 of 2013 and 30401 of 2013, were filed challenging the order of STAT.

9. This Court on 19.12.2014 allowed all the writ petitions and remitted the matter to the STA for reconsideration with specific directions to consider the applications of the applicants after considering the comparative merit. The entire exercise was to be concluded within six weeks from the date of the judgment.

10. STA on 16.04.2015 granted five permits to petitioners of writ petition no. 6340 of 2020. The said decision was questioned by one Rauf Khan by filing writ petition no. 28044 of 2015. This Court on 15.05.2015 dismissed the said writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy and required him to file an appeal against the decisio