R.A.SHARMA, J. - (1.) Petitioners who are the existing operators holding stage carriage permits, have by means of these writ petitions challenged the orders, passed by the Regional Transport Authorities (hereinafter referred to as the RTA) granting stage carriage permits for their routes.
(2.) In our opinion the petitioners have an alternative remedy of revision under S. 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the impugned orders. These writ petitions as such are liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. Learned counsel for the petitioners have however, in this connection, invited our attention to the order dt. 21-3-1991, passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Tribunal). Whereby a revision against the order of the R.T.A. granting permit was dismissed on the ground that an existing operator has no locus standi in the matter of grant of permits inasmuch as he has no right to be heard at the stage of grant of permit. For this purpose the Appellate Tribunal has relied on a Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Secretary R.T.A. v. E. Rama Rao, AIR 1991 AP 11. In view of the said decision of the Appellate Tribunal, it has been argued that revision will not be entertained by the Appellate Tribunal.
(3.) On the question as to whether an existing operator can maintain a revision under S. 90 of the Act against the order of the Transport Authorities granting permit, we have heard Sarva Sri L. P. Naithani, C. P. Ghildiyal, A. D. Saunders and A. R. Dubey, who have argued that such a revision at the instance of the existing operator is maintainable. Learned Standing Counsel, who has appeared for the State, has also taken the stand that a revision by an existing operator the order of the RTA granting permit is maintainable and he has agreed with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.;