The main legal point established in the judgment is that the formulation of the route under Section 68(3)(ca) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a condition precedent before filing an application for a stage carriage permit under Section 70 of the Act.

Gangele, J.

1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 20th February, 2009 passed by the respondent No. 1-M.P. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior.

2. The petitioner submitted an application on 28-07-2003 for grant of stage carriage permit. On the aforesaid application, four objectors, namely, Naveen Kumar Agrawal, Vinod Kumar Paramand Patidar- respondent No. 3, Akhilesh Kumar and the M.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Indore submitted their objections. The matter was considered by the Regional Transport Authority in its meeting held on 24-09-2003. One of the objection raised before the authority was that the route for which the petitioner applied for grant of permit was not formulated in accordance with Section 68(3)(ca) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1988'), hence, application submitted by the petitioner for grant of permit was not maintainable, that objection has been rejected by the Regional Transport Authority-respondent No. 2 on the ground that before passing the order, the State Transport Authority vide order dated 02-09-2003 approved the proposal of route under Section 68(3)(ca) of the Act of 1988. The other objections raised by the objectors before the authority were in regard to timings of the permit. The Regional Transport Authority-respondent No. 2 vide order dated 15-01-2004 rejected the objections and granted stage carriage permit in favour of the petitioner on the route i.e., Morkatta to Dhamnod via Bijsana, Bhawati, Bhamta, Pichhori, Badwani, Anjad, Mandawada, Talwada, Dawana, Thikari, Khalghat Phata, for one return daily trip. Against the aforesaid order, respondent No. 3 preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 allowed the appeal after holding that before formulating the route, no application could have been entertained by the respondent No. 2, hence, grant of permit in favour of the petitioner was illegal. The aforesaid order of the respondent No. 1 is under challenge before this Court.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner ha submitted that at the time of consideration of application of the petitioner for grant of permit, the route was already formulated, hence, respondent No. 1 committed an error of law in rejecting the application of the petitioner. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel relief on the following judgments:

i) (1994) 6 SCC 71 Esskey Roadways (Firm) v. Anandhakrishnan Bus Service;

ii) AIR 1997 SC 412 Gajraj Singh etc. v. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Ors.

4. Contrary to this learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 has submitted that when the petitioner submitted an application for grant of stage carriage permit, no route was formulated, hence, the application of the petitioner was not maintainable. Consequently, the grant of permit in favour of the petitioner is against the law. In support of his contentions, learned Counsel relied on the following judgments:

i) AIR 1969 SC 1130 R. Obliswami Naidu v. Additional State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras and Ors.;

ii) AIR 2006 Rajasthan 180 Deva Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. and

iii) W.P. No. 3258/2008 [M/s Anurag Bus-Service, Tikamgarh v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P. Gwalior and Ors., a reported judgment of this Court passed on 8-8-2008].

5. The moot question for decision before us is that whether an application for grant of stage carriage permit is maintainable before formulation of route under Section 68(3)(ca) of the Act of 1988. The petitioner submitted an application for grant of stage carriage permit on 28-07-2003 on the route i.e., Morkatta to Dhamnod via Bijsana, Bhawati, Bhamta, Pichhori, Badwani, Anjad, Mandawada, Talwada, Dawana, Thikari, Khalghat Phata, for one return trip daily. It is not in dispute that on the date of filing of the application the route for which the petitioner applied for grant of permit was not formulated in accordance with the provisions of Section 68(a)(ca) of the Act of 1