O R D E R

The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 16.10.2019 passed by the respondents No1. Regional Transport Authority (RTA), Indore whereby timing in the Stage Carriage Permit (SCP)of respondent No.2 has been changed.

2.

The petitioner is holding the regular Stage Carriage Permit No.

SCP-156/2016 for the route - Indore to Kukshi via Manpur, Dhamnod, Khalghat and Manawar for one return trip daily for the period from 1.1.2017 to 31.12.2021. Likewise, respondent No.2 is also holding the regular Stage Carriage Permit No. SCP02/2016 for the route - Indore to Manawar via Manpur, Dhamnod, Khalghat one return trip daily for the period from 4.4.2016 to 2.4.2021.

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 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 M/s. Trivedi Bus Service V/s. Transport Department & others 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 ut 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. 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 estopped to approach this court after availing the remedy of Revision before State

Transport Appellate Tribunal.

5. the impugned order by raising the issue of maintainability of writ petition for want of alternate remedy of appeal u/s. 89 and remedy of revision u/s 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Ms. Mini Ravindran, learned counsel appearing for respon