Objectors have no right to file a revision if they are not the applicants for the route.

JUDGMENT : – Shri R. D. Sharma, counsel for the petitioner.

Shri N. K. Gupta, senior Advocate with Shri Man Singh Jadon, counsel for the respondents No. 3 and 4, on caveat. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 14-11-2019 passed in Revision No. 295/2019 whereby the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT) instead of deciding the question of locus standi of respondents No. 3 and 4 to file a revision petition have decided the revision on merits and quashed the order dated 22-10-2019. It is alleged that the petitioner is owner of a vehicle bearing registration No. MP07P0924 of the year 2013 and has applied for grant of temporary permit from Gwalior RBS to Lahar route for one trip daily w.e.f. 1-11-2019 to 30-11-2019 showing temporary need in its column No. 4 mentioning the reason as under : –

“Public convenience 87-1-C MV Act like Hat Bazar, Court Kachari, Marriage School, College, Open Season, Local Mela, Festival, All months like Baldiwas etc.”

2. The said application was not opposed by the respondents No. 3 and 4 because their route was different. It is alleged that the learned STA considering the permanent need of the route in question has formulated the route on 5-5-2003 through resolution No. 187. The same was duly countersigned by the Secretary RTA Gwalior and was not challenged by respondents No. 3 and 4 at any point of time. It is alleged that on the application being made by the petitioner the temporary permit was granted to him vide order dated 22-10-2019 w.e.f. 1-11-2019 to 30-11-2019. Challenging the order dated 22-10-2019 respondents No. 3 and 4 has filed a joint revision which was registered as 295/19 before the STAT, M.P. Gwalior and the aforesaid revision was considered and decided on merits by the learned STAT. It is alleged that the respondents No. 3 and 4 were having no right to file the revision. In view of the decision rendered by this Court in M.P. No. 722/2018 and M.P. No. 9157/2018 because they are neither the co-applicants nor the objectors operating on the route in question. It is alleged that the learned STAT without deciding the question of maintainability of the revision and locus of the respondents No. 3 and 4 to file the review has allowed the revision by the impugned order, therefore, the same is put to challenge by filing the petition. It is alleged that the order impugned is contrary to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta vs. Alnoori Tobacco Products and anr., reported in (2004) 6 SCC 186 wherein it is held that prior to deciding the case on merits if there is a question of maintainability of the case then the issue with respect to maintainability should be decided first. It is alleged that the learned STAT instead of dealing with the question of maintainability of revision has decided the revision on merits which is contrary to law. It is further alleged that the learned STAT has failed to consider that in view of the liberalized policy of the Act and in terms of section 80(1), (2) dealing with grant of temporary permit the application filed by the petitioner was valid and was rightly granted the temporary permit. It is alleged that the impugned order is contrary to the provisions of section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He has relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Mithilesh Garg vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1992 SC 443, Munnawar Jahan Begum (Smt.) and anr. vs. Union of India and ors., reported in 1992 JLJ 180, Mohd. Ansar (Anwar) vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and ors., reported in 2019 (1) MPJR 20 and further the order dated 10-11-2017 passed in W.A. No. 951/17 in the case of Ajit Singh Bhadoriya vs. Narendra Sachdeva and others. He has further relied upon the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 1623/2019 wherein this Court has granted interim relief on 27-3-2019. He has prayed for quashment of the