MAHENDRA GUPTA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS and respondent No.3 are in loggerheads on the question of validity of impugned order 15.12.2014. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners/ bus operators have assailed the order dated 15.12.2014 (Annexure P/1) issued by State Transport Authority (STA).

(2.) THE brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are that the petitioners have permanent permit for two routes between Gwalior to Bhander and Gwalior to Datia. Respondent No.3 also has a permanent permit for the route Gwalior to Jhansi. Respondent No.3 preferred an application dated 30.09.2014 (Annexure P/7). In the said application, it was prayed that the time schedule for movement of his vehicle be modified as per the prayer made in the said application. In addition, it is prayed that as per the modified schedule prayed for, the vehicle of respondent No.3 be permitted to stop at various places including Dabra and Datia. On this application, the parties were heard by the STA.

(3.) SHRI H.D. Gupta, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the application of respondent No.3 shows that he has prayed for twin relief namely (1) change of timing and (2) variation / stoppage permission. By taking this court to various items notified under M.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 (for brevity, the "Rules of 1994"), it is contended that respondent No.3 was required to pay two sets of fees. It is contended that, admittedly, Annexure P/7 was filed by only paying Rs. 1500/ - as fees. In view of twin reliefs, two sets of fees i.e. Rs.1500 each (Total Rs.3000/ - ) was required to be paid. In absence of paying the requisite fees which was a condition precedent, the application was not entertainable. Shri Gupta further submits that the relevant items 16, 17 and 18 published under rule 145 of the Rules, leave no room for any doubt that payment of two sets of fees, as aforesaid, was a mandatory condition. By placing reliance on a judgment of Division Bench of this Court (Azad Hind Motor Transport Co -op. Society Vs. Regional Transport Authorit, Indore and others,1964 MPLJ 347), it is contended that such application without payment of requisite fees could not have been entertained. In addition, it is contended that this kind of defect of non -payment of adequate fees is not even a curable defect.