ORDER

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 07.09.2022 passed by Chairman, MP STAT, Gwalior in Revision No.131/2022, by which the revision filed by the respondent No. 3 has been allowed and the permit issued in favour of the petitioner on 25.04.2022 for plying Bus on Bhind to Gwalior route has been set aside.

2. Challenging the order passed by the STAT, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that on 05.09.2018, the petitioner filed an application for grant of permit for plying Bus bearing registration No.MP14-P-0262 on Bhind-Gwalior-Bhind route. The case was heard on 14.09.2018 and was reserved for orders. However, no date for delivery of order was given. It appears that the order dated 04.10.2018 was passed thereby granting permit in favour of the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid route for plying Bus No.MP14-P-0262, but the said order was never communicated to the petitioner. Thereafter, on 28.01.2019 one Harishankar Singh Patel filed a revision against the order dated 04.10.2018. The petitioner appeared in the said revision and only thereafter he came to know that permit on the above-mentioned route for plying Bus No.MP14-P-0262 has already been granted by order dated 04.10.2018, therefore, he verbally requested the competent authority to permit the petitioner to lift the permit, but because of pendency of revision filed by Harishankar Singh, competent authority verbally refused to issue permit. Thereafter, Harishankar Singh withdrew the revision. In the meanwhile, on 06.04.2022 the petitioner moved an application for grant of permission to lift the permit and, accordingly, by order dated 25.04.2022 the permit was issued in the name of the petitioner. It is submitted that it is not out of the place to mention here that in the year 2018, when the petitioner moved an application for grant of permit, respondent No. 3 was neither co-applicant nor the objector. However, it appears that on 21.12.2020 the respondent No. 3 at a later stage also applied for grant of permit for the same route. The said application was rejected on 01.02.2021. It is submitted that since the respondent No. 3 was neither co-applicant nor the objector to his application for grant of permit which was filed on 04.10.2018, therefore, he has no locus to challenge the order dated 25.04.2022, by which the permit was issued to the petitioner. It is submitted that as per Rule 74(3) of the M.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, it is obligatory on the part of the authority to communicate the order passed on the application for grant of permit. Since the order was never communicated, therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to apply for issuance of permit and therefore, there was some delay on the part of the petitioner in lifting the permit. It is submitted that the word "communication" as mentioned in Rule 74(3) of M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 (in short "Rules, 1994") is mandatory and, therefore, no adverse inference can be drawn against the petitioner if the petitioner could not lift the permit for want of communication. It is submitted that when a statute provides for performance of an act in a partic