The court held that modifying a permit process under S.57 (3) must comply with distinct stages set out in S.47 and S.57 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Art.226 and Art.227 of the Constitution. By this petition the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal Gwalior in Appeal No. 113 of 1974 decided on 31-12-1975.

2. According to the petitioner he was granted a permit for plying a passenger bus between Sendhwa and Warla via Hingwa in the year 1972. According to him this route in accordance with the map which he has filed along with the petition. He alleges that thereafter he approached the Regional Transport Authority by saving that the route between Hingwa and Warla was not motorable. He therefore applied for a diversion of this route from Sendhwa to Warla via Balwadi. This application of his for diversion was registered in the Regional Transport Authority Indore as Case No. 88 of 1974. According to the petitioner the Regional Transport Authority, after following the procedure laid down in S.57 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act passed an order on 27-9-1974 and allowed the diversion as prayed for by the petitioner. Against this order of the Regional Transport Authority the respondent No. 2 preferred a revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal Gwalior, who, after hearing the parties allowed the petition and set aside the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority. It is against this the present petition has been filed.

3. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that when the permit was granted to the petitioner he immediately thereafter drew the attention of the Regional Transport Authority that part of the route is not motorable and repeatedly invited his attention of this aspect of the matter. Ultimately the Regional Transport Authority, after following the procedure prescribed under S.57 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act permitted the alteration of the route and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal set aside that order on an assumption that the diversion of the route amounted to grant of a new permit. It was also contended that the appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority holding that part of the route is covered in Scheme No 64 for nationalization. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in fact this part of the route was not covered under Scheme No. 64 and therefore there is an error apparent on the record.

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, however, contended that when the route was advertised and if the petitioner felt that part of the route was not motorable it was open to him to raise an objection and to get the route modified. But once the route is finally settled and applications are invited for grant of permit and the petitioner applied for permit on that particular route and got it, it is not open to him to make an application for diversion. The only course open before the Regional Transport Authority was to readvertise the modified route and invite applications for grant of permit on the modified route as according to learned counsel this amounted to grant of a new permit on a new route and this the Regional Transport Authority could not do under the garb of modification of the route. In support of the contention learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in R. Obliswami Naidu v. Addl. State Transport Appellate Tribunal Madras , AIR 1969 SC 1130 .

5. It was also contended by learned counsel for the respondent that part of this route is covered under the scheme of nationalisation and he drew our attention to the scheme and the map along with the scheme. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that he has filed along with the petition Scheme No. 64 which does not cover this