Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BENCH
Vivek Rusia, J.
Ritesh Khandelwal – Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. and Ors. – Respondent
W.P. No. 15956 of 2020
Decided On : 17-02-2021
Motor Vehicles Act - Stage Carriage Permit - 72(3), 80(3), Rule 145 - The court quashed the order changing the timing in the Stage Carriage Permit, citing that the authority did not have the power to review the permit's timing. The judgment in M/s. Trivedi Bus Service was referenced to support the argument that the Act does not confer the power of review and that the conditions amenable to variation do not include the change of timetable determined by the Regional Transport Authority. The court also highlighted that there was no enabling provision under the Act and the Rules for changing the timing in the existing permit.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order changing the timing in the Stage Carriage Permit, arguing that the authority did not have the power to review the permit's timing. The petitioner had objected to the change, but the objection was not considered, and the application by respondent No. 2 was allowed, resulting in a clash of timing with the petitioner's permit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the authority acted beyond its authority in entertaining the application for a change of timing, and therefore quashed the impugned order, restoring the old timetable of the Stage Carriage Permit of respondent No. 2.
Issues: The main issue was whether the authority had the power to change the timing in the existing Stage Carriage Permit, and whether the petitioner's challenge to the impugned order was maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Act does not confer the power of review and that the conditions amenable to variation do not include the change of timetable determined by the Regional Transport Authority. It also emphasized that there was no enabling provision under the Act and the Rules for changing the timing in the existing permit.
Final Decision: The impugned order changing the timing in the Stage Carriage Permit was quashed, and the old timetable of the Stage Carriage Permit of respondent No. 2 was restored.
ORDER :
Vivek Rusia, J.
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 16.10.2019 passed by the respondents No. 1. Regional Transport Authority (RTA), Indore whereby timing in the Stage Carriage Permit (SCP) of respondent No. 2 has been changed.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
Respondent No. 2 submitted an application before respondent No. 1 seeking change in the timing of the permit SCP No. 02/2016. The petitioner submitted an objection on 28.8.2019 raising various objections including the authority of respondent No. 1 to pass any order in respect of change of timing and review its own order. Vide impugned order dated 16.10.2019, respondent No. 1 has allowed the application of respondent No. 2 and changed the timing which is prejudicing and causing immense loss to the petitioner.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner approached the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT), Gwalior on 7.12.2019 by way of Revision Petition No. 328/2019. Later on, the petitioner filed an application for withdrawal of the Revision with the liberty to approach again. Vide order dated 1.10.2020 learned STAT has permitted the petitioner to withdraw the revision. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present petition before this Court.
3. The petitioner is assailing the impugned order mainly on the ground that respondent No. 1 has no authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rules made thereunder to change the timing in the existing permit. For the sake of arguments even if it is permissible, then it is altogether a new permit for which no route was formulated under the provisions contained in Rule 72(3) of Motor Vehicles Rules. The application filed by respondent No. 2 was not maintainable as no reason has been assigned for a change of timing in the permit. The impugned order is illegal and invalid in view of the provisions contained in 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In support of the argument, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance over the judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Trivedi Bus Service V/s. Transport Department & others (W.P. No. 14117/2019 decided on 20.2.2020) in which similar controversy has been put to rest by holding that sub-section (3) of Section 80 talks about change of the condition of the permit it does not include change of timing once determined or approved by the Road Transport Authority (RTA). Clause (xxi) of Section 72(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act has no application in the said case. The co-ordinate Bench also rejected the objection in respect of the availability of the remedy of filing the revision petition.
4. After notice, respondent No. 1 has filed the return objecting to the maintainability of the writ petition for want of availability of alternate remedy as provided in Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioner has availed the remedy of filing the revision but withdrew the same, therefore, he is not permitted to approach this Court and that too without explaining the delay of almost one year in challenging the impugned order.
However, during the arguments, learned Penal Lawyer has admitted that there is no dispute in respect of a similar issue decided by this Court in the case of M/s. Trivedi Bus Service (supra), hence no reason to oppose the writ petition on the legal issue by the state. learned Penal Lawyer submits the petitioner is
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the authority did not have the power to review the timing in the Stage Carriage Permit, as the Act does not confer such power and there was....
A transport authority must consider objections filed against proposed revisions to settled bus timings prior to granting or varying permits.
The court affirmed that non-communication by authorities regarding permit decisions invalidates claims of automatic cancellation due to inaction, highlighting the Transport Authority's duty to inform....
Transport authority must reconsider timing revisions on merits as directed by Tribunal, not reject solely for non-attendance at conference.
The regulatory authority is under a duty to convene a timing conference and finalize the timings for a stage carriage permit within a reasonable period following the approval of a permit variation re....
The starting point for limitation in appeals is the actual or constructive knowledge of the order by the affected party, not merely the order's issuance date.
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
