MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (GWALIOR BENCH)
S.K. GANGELE, M.K. MUDGAL, JJ.
Padam Chand Gupta & another
Versus
State Transport Authority & another
Writ Petition No. 5125 of 2013
Decided On: 21/10/2013
Undue Benefit - Grant of Permanent Permit - M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 Rule 72(2) - The court discussed the grant of permanent permit for an inter-State route and the timings given to the respondent, highlighting the obligation of the Regional Transport Authority to exercise its power reasonably and not give undue advantage to any party. The court also emphasized the requirement for the applicant to have the vehicle available at the time of the permit's consideration, as per Rule 72(3)(b) of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the grant of permanent permit to the respondent for an inter-State route, alleging unfair advantage in timings and unavailability of the respondent's vehicle at the time of permit consideration.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent was given undue advantage in timings and did not fulfill the criteria of having a vehicle at the time of the permit's consideration, leading to the quashing of the permit granted to the respondent.
Issues: Grant of permanent permit, Timings allocation, Availability of vehicle at the time of permit consideration
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the obligation of the Regional Transport Authority to exercise its power reasonably and not give undue advantage to any party. It also highlighted the requirement for the applicant to have the vehicle available at the time of the permit's consideration, as per Rule 72(3)(b) of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994.
Final Decision: The petition filed by the petitioners was allowed, and the grant of permanent permit in favor of the respondent was quashed.
S.K. GANGELE, J.
The petitioners have filed this petition against the order dated 4-7-2013 (Annexure P/1) passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior and the order dated 12-11-2012 passed by the Regional Transport Authority.
2. Number of applicants applied for grant of permanent permit of a route Gwalior to Jhansi via Dabra, Datia of one return trip daily. It is an inter-State route and is a part of a reciprocal agreement between the State of M.P. and U.P. Earlier the route was part of a scheme. After de-notification of the scheme, the route was opened for private operators. Total 45 applications were received by the Regional Transport Authority. 16 persons including the petitioners made their objections. The respondent No. 2 was granted the permanent permit of the route with one return trip. The petitioners also have the permanent permit of the route of different timing.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal did not consider the fact that the respondent No. 2 had been given undue benefit in fixing the time because the respondent No. 2 has been granted departure time of 1.30 p.m. from Gwalior and arrival at Jhansi on 4.30 p.m. and thereafter departure time of respondent No. 2 from Jhansi is 5.30 p.m. and arrival at Gwalior at 8.30 p.m. The respondent No. 2 has been granted time ahead of the petitioner, however the respondent No. 2 reaches Jhansi after the petitioner, hence it is arbitrary. It is further submitted that the vehicle, which was covered under the permit granted to the respondent No. 2 was not available on the date of consideration of the permit because at that time the vehicle was covered under another permit No. 558/09 Gwalior to Bhind route, hence the order of grant of permit in favour of respondent No. 2 is contrary to law.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 has submitted that the vehicle No. M.P. 07/P/592 Model 2011 had been leased out to one Chandra Prakash Gour for operation from Gwalior to Bhind route and the aforesaid vehicle was not a spare vehicle on 29-6-2012 as well as on 12-11-2012 on the date of grant of permit.
5. In regard to question of grant of timings to respondent No. 2, he has been granted following timings by RTA :-
(Vernacular matter omitted......Ed.)
6. Petitioner No. 1 was granted timing of departure from Gwalior at 13.50 and arrival at Jhansi at 4.25 p.m. Similarly petitioner No. 2 was granted timing of return from Jhansi 5.40 p.m. and arrival at Gwalior at 8.15 p.m.
7. From the aforesaid facts it is clear that the timings of the petitioner No. 1 from Gwalior is 13.50 and arrival at Jhansi is 4.25 p.m. and timings of respondent No. 2 is 13.30 from Gwalior and arrival at Jhansi is 4.30 p.m. Similarly from Jhansi departure is 5.30 p.m. and arrival at Gwalior is 8.30 p.m. and petitioner No. 2 reaches at Gwalior at 8.15 p.m. and his departure time from Jhansi is 5.40 p.m. It means that the petitioner No. 2 reaches Gwalior before respondent No. 2 and his departure from Jhansi is 5.40 p.m. and departure of respondent No. 2 from Jhansi is 5.30 p.m. before the petitioner No. 2 but he reaches Gwalior after the petitioner No. 2 at 8.30 p.m. Similarly departure time of petitioner No. 1 from Gwalior is 13.50 and he reaches Jhansi at 4.25 p.m. but departure time of respondent No. 2 from Gwalior is 13.30 before the petitioner No. 1 and his arrival at Jhansi is 4.30 p.m. after the petitioner No. 1. It means that the respondent No. 2 has been given unfair advantage in comparison to the petitioners. Halt of the petitioners and respondent No. 2 are the same and their stoppage are also same.
8. Rule 72(2) of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 gives power to the Regional Transport Authority to approve the time schedule of the vehicles. It is obligatory on the part of the Regional Transport Authority to exercise his power reasonably so all the persons be given same benefit and some persons be not given undue be
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.