Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT JABALBUR BENCH
Arun Mishra, Sushma Shrivastava, JJ.
Parihar Transport Company - Appellant
Versus
State of M.P.and others - Respondent
W.P.No 4391 of 2009
Decided On : 07-10-2009
Appeal - Grant of Permit - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 89(1)(a), Section 90
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a challenge to the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT) in Revision No. 638/2007, which was filed against the grant of permit to M/s Parihar Transport Company. The petitioner contended that the appeal was maintainable, but the revision was not maintainable before STAT. The respondents supported the order and argued that appeal lies only in the case of refusal to grant a permit as per Section 89(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Finding of the Court:
The court examined the provisions of Sections 89 and 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which deal with appeals and revisions. It found that an appeal lies against the refusal of grant of permit, not against the grant of permit. As the permit was granted to the petitioner, the aggrieved person could not have preferred the appeal as per Section 89(1)(a), making the revision maintainable. The court dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the revision as against the grant of permit, based on the interpretation of Sections 89 and 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an appeal lies only against the refusal of grant of permit as per Section 89(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It concluded that the revision was maintainable in this case, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit, without imposing any costs.
JUDGMENT
Arun Mishra, J.:-
The Order (P-4) passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal passed in Revision No. 638/2007 passed has been assailed by way of filing instant writ petition.
2. Revision No. 638/2007 was preferred as against the order of grant of permit to M/s Parihar Transport Company whereas against the order dated 10-10-2007 passed in Case No. 158/96 by Regional Transport Authority, Rewa refusing to renew the permit held by Drigpal Singh, Appeal No. 476/2007 was preferred, which has been decided vide order (p-3) dated 13-4-2009.
3. The only question agitated by Shri B. K. Rawat appearing with Shri Komal Patel for petitioner, is that as against the order of grant of permit, appeal was maintainable, revision was not maintainable before STAT, thus the interference made by the STAT in the revisional order (P-4) is without jurisdiction.
4. Shri Amit Singh and Ms. Sheetal Dubey, GA appearing for respondents have supported the order and submitted that appeal lies only in the case of refusal to grant permit as envisaged under section 89(1)(a) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Thus no case for interference is made out.
5. Two orders were passed by Regional Transport Authority. Order (P-1) was passed on the application filed by M/s Parihar Transport Company, petitioner in the instant petition. Vide order (P-1), the Regional Transport. Authority has granted the permit, against which Revision No. 638/2007 was preferred, which has been decided vide order (P-4) by STAT. The STAT has set aside the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority which order has not been assailed in this petition.
6. Another order (P-2) was passed on 10-10-2007 on the application filed by Drigpal Singh in which objector was the petitioner in the instant petition. Application filed by respondent No. 4 for renewal of permit, was dismissed, against which Appeal No. 476/2007 was preferred, which has been allowed by the STAT vide order (P-3) dated 13-4-2009. Case has been remitted to the Regional Transport Authority to take action afresh and to decide the application in accordance with law.
7. For examining the submission raised by the petitioner's counsel as to the maintainability of the revision as against the grant of permit, we deem it appropriate to quote the provision of sections 89 and 90 which deals with the appeal and revision.
89. Appeals. - (1) Any person -
(a) aggrieved by the refusal of the State or a Regional Transport Authority to grant a permit, or by any condition attached to a permit granted to him, or
(b) aggrieved by the revocation or suspension of the permit or by any variation of the conditions thereof, or
(c) aggrieved by the refusal to transfer the permit under section 82, or
(d) aggrieved by the refusal of the State or a Regional Transport Authority to countersign a permit, or by any condition attached to such countersignature, or
(e) aggrieved by the refusal of renewal of a permit, or
(f) aggrieved by the refusal to grant permission under section 83, or
(g) aggrieved by any other order which may be prescribed, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal constituted under sub-section (2), who shall, after giving such person and the original authority an opportunity of being heard, give a decision thereon which shall be final.
(2) The State Government shall constitute for the State, a State Transport Appellate Tribunal which shall consist of a judicial officer who is not below the rank of a District Judge, or who is qualified to be a Judge of a High Court:
Provided that in relation to a Union territory, the Tribunal may consist of the Administrator of that territory or any officer who has judicial experience.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), every appeal pending at the commencement of this Act, shall continue to be proceeded with and disposed of as if this Act had not been passed.
Explanation. - For the removal of
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
