The main legal point established is that the amended Rule 77(1a) of MP Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 does not apply to stage carriages registered before the amendment, and the Regional Transport Authority cannot impose conditions on permits not authorized by the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J.

1. This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated at 08.12.2020 passed by Shri Axay Kumar Dwivedi, STAT, Gwalior in Appeal No. 21/2020 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16.9.2020 has been dismissed and the application filed by the petitioner for renewal of permit in respect of bus No. M.P.-33-E-0199 has been deferred on the ground that the said bus has completed its life of 15 years and, therefore, the petitioner should replace the bus as per the amendment in Rule 77 of (MP Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994).

2. It is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was granted permit for plying bus No. M.P.-33-E-0199. The last renewal of the permit was having its validity from 25.4.2015 to 25.4.2020. After the validity came to an end, he filed an application for renewal which has been deferred by RTA by the impugned order dated 16.9.2020 which has been affirmed by STAT. It is submitted that the co-ordinate bench of this Court by order dated 30.8.2018 passed in case of Waheed Khan v. Transport Department and Ors. (W.P. No. 7703/2018) has held that the provision of sub-rule (1a) of Rule 77 of MP Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 (In short Rules 1994) would not apply to the stage carriage which were registered earlier and accordingly, petitioner is entitled for renewal of his permit and deferment of his application is contrary to such judgment.

3. This Court, by orders dated 5-1-2021, 12-1-2021, 18-1-2021, 29-1-2021 and 15-2-2021 granted time to the State Counsel to verify as to whether any writ appeal against the order passed in the case of Waheed Khan (Supra) is under contemplation or not. It is submitted by the State Counsel that in spite of various letters sent by the Office of Additional Advocate General, no response has been received.

4. Under these circumstances, this Court is left with no other option, but to hear this case on merits.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that he was granted permit for the bus bearing registration no. M.P.-33-E-0199 which was lastly renewed in the year 2015 and validity of renewed permit was upto 25.4.2020. It is further admitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that bus bearing registration No. M.P.-33-E-0199 has attained its age of 15 years in the month of July 2020.

6. Now the only question for consideration is as to whether the case of the petitioner is covered by the amended provision of Rule 77 (1a) of Rules, 1994 or not.

7. By amendment dated 24th of September, 2010 in the Rules of 1994, sub-rule (1a) was inserted in Rule 77 of Rule of 1994 which reads as under :-

"3. In rule 77, Sub-rule (1), the following sub-rule shall be inserted, namely:-

(1 a) In order to ensure safe, secure and convenient transport services to the passengers, the permit granting authority while granting a stage carriage permit shall abide the following conditions, namely :-

(i) that no stage carriage permit shall be granted on interstate route to a vehicle which has completed 10 years from the manufacture year;

(ii) that no stage carriage permit shall be granted for ordinary route within the State to a vehicle which has completed 15 years from the year of manufacture;

(iii) that no stage carriage permit shall be granted for any route to the vehicle which has completed 20 years from the year of manufacture;

(iv) that for long distance route of 150 km or above in a single trip, the following category of vehicles with seating capacity shown against each shall be permitted to ply:

8. Rules 77 (1a) (ii) which provided that no stage carriage permit sh