- (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 26.9.2009 passed by respondent No. 2 in Appeal No. 12 of 2010 and order dated 26.11.2010 passed by respondent No. 3 whereby petitioner's application for grant of regular stage carriage permit to ply his vehicle from Ghazipur to Mardah via Hanshrajpur has been rejected.
(2.) The authorities below have observed that there are already enough vehicles on the route and any further addition may result in making it a racing ground which may result in more accidents on the route. The decision of the Apex Court in Mithlesh Garg v. Union of India, 1992 AIR(SC) 443 has been considered by this Court in Mukesh Kumar v. Regional Transport Authority, 2003 2 AWC 1106 , and in paras 8, 9 and 10 this Court said: 8. In our opinion, the aforesaid observation in para 4 of the decision in Surendra Rao's case , cannot be interpreted to mean that grant of permit can be denied on the ground that there are already enough motor vehicles on the route. If a route is being converted into a racing ground, then those who are inefficient will be eliminated by competition. In our opinion, the applicant for permit on any route (except a nationalised route) has to be granted the permit on his paying the requisite fees. For this purpose, the observation in para 4 of the Surendra Rao's case , is to be read alongwith decision of the Supreme Court in Mithlesh Kumar's case , where it was observed in para 5 that a permit has to be granted on asking for it. The observations of the Supreme Court are binding on the High Court under Article 141 of the Constitution, and this Court cannot take a view contrary to that of the Supreme Court. 9. Competition is healthy and good and is in the public interest because it ensures low rates and efficient transport system. If a contrary view is taken, the will of parliament as evident from omission of Section 47(3) of the old Act will be frustrated by indirect methods. 10. We, therefore, dismiss the writ petition with the observation that any applicant for a permit of any route (except a nationalised route) has to be granted the permit on his paying the prescribed fees.
(3.) The issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision.;