M.L.Bhat, J. - (1.) 15 Persons including the petitioners herein, had applied for grant of stage carriage permits for plying their vehicles on an inter regional route known as Gunnaur -Gawan -Rahra route, hereinafter called the route. This route falls within the jurisdiction of Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly and Moradabad. It is stated , that respondent No. 3 is the existing operator of the said route. The applicants were granted the route permits on 2 -7 -90. Respondent No. 3 filed a revision against the order of R. T. A. before respondent No. 1. It is contended that the petitioners Nos. 1 to 5 have already lifted the permits. In the meantime, some writ petitions are said to have been filed before the Lucknow Bench of this Court challenging the validity of Motor Vehicles Act which came into force on 1 -7 -89. The said Act was declared valid by the Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 22 -11 -91 in Mithilesh Garg etc. v. Union of India and others ( : A. I. R. 1992 S.C. 443).
(2.) IN view of the said order granted by the Lucknow Bench of this Court, petitioner No. 6 was granted temporary permit. In all seven permits are said to have been granted. Out of seven, six were granted to the petitioners and one to some other persons and the petitioners are said to have started operating on the route in dispute. Respondent No. 1, while allowing the revision has observed that the permits were granted in a mechanical manner. Respondent No. 1 is said to have based its findings on certain grounds which, according to learned counsel for the petitioners, are not germane for grant of permits in the new Act. These grounds were that out of 15 grantees only one grantee was lifted the permit secondly the applications filed for grant of permits were not complete in all respect and thirdly, that there was no survey conducted before the grant of permits. The revision seems to have been contested before the Tribunal, only by one or two persons and not by all the petitioners.
(3.) IT is submitted by Mr. Naithani that the judgment of respondent No. I whereby he has remanded the matter to respondent No 2 for reconsideration of the applications of the applicants, is bad and is against the provisions of law. The order passed by respondent No. 1 dated 18 -9 -92 is prayed to be quashed on the ground that the Tribunal has erroneously held economic loss is a relevant consideration for refusal of the permits. It was not necessary under law that survey should have been conducted before the "grant of permits. Under the new Act there is no restriction on number of permits which could be granted. Therefore question of economic loss or survey to be conducted, is no ground for refusing the grant of permits. Respondent No. 3 cannot be heard to say that because of grant of permits he would suffer economic loss. The Tribunal's findings that only one permit was lifted, was contrary to the facts. Seven permits were lifted and the Tribunal was not informed by the authority in this regard. Tribunal's finding that revisionist before him was economically sound having past experience, is an irrelevant consideration for refusing to grant permits to others. The Tribunal's finding that R. T. A. has mechanically dealt with the matter is also erroneous. There was no heed to remand the case back because entire record was before respondent No. 1.;