- (1.) G. P. Mathur, J. The applications moved by respondent Nos. 5 to 17 for grant of stage carriage permits for operating city bus service in Moradabad were rejected by the Regional Transport Authority but the appeals preferred against the same were allowed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) by the order, dated July 26, 1994. The petitioners who are the existing operators, have preferred this writ peti tion for quashing of the order of the Tribunal.
(2.) SRI L. P. Naithani, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Regional Transport Authority had fixed the number of permits for different routes for the city of Moradabad, which has a population of less than 2 lakhs. After considering various factors, the applications moved by contesting respondents were rejected by the Authority but the Appellate Tribunal, without taking into consideration the relevant factors, has allowed the appeals and granted permits to the contesting respondents. SRI Naithani has further submitted that the District Magistrate and S. S. P. , Moradabad had written to the Regional Authority that looking to the volume of traffic and possibility of accident, increase in number of vehicles on the routes in question was not (necessary Annexure 4 and 5 to the writ petition ). But the Appellate Tribunal had granted permits in mechanical manner without taking into consideration the relevant factors. SRI A. D. Saunders, learned counsel for contesting respondents, has, however, submitted that the Regional Trans port Authority had illegally rejected the applications of respondent No. 5 to 17 for grant of permit and the order of rejection was rightly set aside by the Appellate Authority. Section 71 (1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) provides that Regional Transport Authority shall, while consider ing an application for a stage carriage permit, have regard to the objects of the Act. Sub-section (3) (a) of this section provide that the State Govern ment shall, if so directed by the Central Government, by notification in the official Gazette, direct a Regional Transport Authority to limit the number of stage carriages as may be fixed and specified in the notification, operating on city routes in towns with a population of not less than 5 lacs. It is not in dispute that with regard to Moradabad neither the Central Government has issued any direction nor the State Government has issued any notifica tion directing the Regional Transport Authority to limit the number of stage carriages. There is no limitation fixed for grant of stage carriage permits for operating on city routes in Moradabad. Sub-section (2) of Section 80 provides that a Regional Transport Authority shall not ordinarily refuse to grant an application for permit of any kind made at any time under this Act. This provision clearly shows that the grant of permit is the Rule and refusal thereof is an exception. The second proviso to this sub-section lays down that the Regional Transport Authority shall give reasons in writing for refusal of an application for grant of permit. The order passed by the Regional Transport Authority shows that it gave no reasons while rejecting the applications of contesting respondents for grant of permit to them. The Regional Transport Authority has only mentioned that the applicants (respondent No. 5 to 17) had not been found fit or proper for grant of permit after consideration of their case on merits. In my opinion, the reason given by the authority does not satisfy the requirement of second proviso to sub section (2) of Section 80 of the Act. The order does not give any details of factors which had been taken into consideration and on evaluation thereof it was found that contesting respondent were not proper persons for grant of permits. The order of Authority has not been passed in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 80 of the Act. The State Trans port Appellate Tribunal was, therefore, perfectly justified in allowing the appeals and granting permits to the contesting respondents. It may be noticed that so far as the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 viz. , Anukool Vatsal and Irfan Husain are concerned, their applications foe grant of stage carriage permits were also rejected by the Regional Transport Autho rity by the order, dated December 24, 1993. Thereafter, they preferred appeals which were registered as appeals No. 102 of 1993 and 124 of 1993. They were allowed on the same ground by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal by the order, dated December 24, 1993. A copy of the judgment of the Tribunal has been filed as Annexure CA-3 to the counter-affidavit. The petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 having thus obtained permits in their favour on the same ground and from the same Appellate Tribunal, it does not lie in their mouth to challenge the grant of permits to respondent Nos. 7 to 17.
(3.) IN Mithilesh Garg v. Union of INdia, AIR 1992 SC 443, Supreme Court has held that the procedure for grant of permits under the Act has been liberalised to such an extent that intended operator can get a permit on asking, irrespective of the number of operators already in the field. It has been further held that the procedure is meant for the benefit and convenience of the public and the policy to grant permits liberally is directed towards the said goal. The order passed by the Appellate Tribunal by which permits have been granted to respondent Nos. 5 to 17, is, therefore, perfectly correct and calls for no interference. I am also of the opinion that the petitioners, who are existing operators, have no locus standi to challenge the grant of permit to the con" testing respondent in view of the provisions of the Act as observed in the case of Mithilesh Garg (Supra ). There is no threat of any kind whatsoever from any authority to the enforcement of their right to carry on the occupa tion of transport operators and there is no complaint of infringement of any of their statutory rights. The efforts of the petitioners is only to stop the new operators from coming in the field as competitors. In taking this view the Supreme Court followed its earlier decision in Rice and Flour Mills v. N. T. Gowda, AIR 1971 SC 246 wherein it was held that a rice mill owner has no locus standi to challenge under Article 226 of the setting up of a new rice mill by another even if such setting up be in contravention of Section 3 (3) (1) of the Rice Milling (Regulation) Act, 1958. The existing operators have thus no locus standi to challenge the grant of permit to another. Shri Naithani has, however, referred to Surendra Rao v. Regional Transport Authority, AIR 1992 All 211 (paragraph 6) in support of his submission that existing operators have locus standi to file the writ petition. I am not expressing any concluded opinion on this question as the petitioners have failed to make out any case for interference on merits. This question may be considered in an appropriate case where the question of locus standi may be of primary importance.;