- (1.) ASHOK Bhushan, J. These two writ petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgement. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged in writ petition No. 46269 of 2007 and learned Counsel for the parties have agreed that both the writ petitions be finally decided. The writ petition No. 46271 of 2007 has been connected with writ petition No. 46269 of 2007 vide order dated 24. 9. 2007 passed in writ petition No. 46271 of 2007.
(2.) HEARD Sri A. D. Saunders learned Counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions and Sri S. N. Jaiswal has appeared for the respondent No. 3 in writ petition No. 46269 of 2007. Sri M. P. Dubey has accepted notice for respondent No. 3 in writ petition No. 46271 of 2007. These two writ petitions have been filed by the two petitioners whose grant of permit of a known route as "meerut-Parikashat Garh- Asifabad-Lalyana and allied routes" which was granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut on 2. 9. 2004 has been set aside by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal on a revision filed by the respondent No. 3 an existing operators of the route. By these writ petitions petitioners have prayed for quashing the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 21. 8. 2007 passed in Revision No. 17 of 2005, Kama/ Kant Gupta v. Regional Transport Authority, and the revision No. 13 of 2007, Vikrant Chaudhary v. Regional Transport Authority. A mandamus has also been sought directing the respondents not to interfere in the operation of the petitioners vehicles on the route "meerut- Parikashat Garh Asifabad-Lalyana and allied routes". It is sufficient to note the brief facts of the case in writ petition No. 46269 of 2007 which is sufficient for deciding both the writ petitions. The petitioners made an application for grant of permit in respect of stage carriage to the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut. The Regional Transport Authority, Meerut in its meeting held on 16. 6. 2004 rejected all the applications on the ground that the existing operators were not getting minimum run of 220 Km. per day. Individual application for grant of permit on the route was again made on 26th of July, 2004 by the petitioners. The route is non-notified route. The Regional Transport Authority in its meeting dated 2. 9. 2004 considered various applications given in regard to different routes of the region. The applications of the petitioners were also considered at item No. 7. After hearing the Counsel who appeared for existing operators as well as the petitioners, the Regional Transport Authority approved the grant of permit, in pursuance of the order of the Regional Transport Authority dated 2. 9. 2004 permits were issued to the petitioners. A revision No. 17 of 2005 was filed by Kamal Kant Gupta against the decision dated 2. 9. 2004 granting permit to the petitioners; another revision No. 13 of 2007 was filed by Vikrant Chaudhary against the order dated 15. 9. 2006 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut by which regular stage carriage permit in favour of the petitioner was issued. The revision filed by Vikrant Chaudhary was against the order dated 15. 9. 2006 by which decision was given to issue permit to the petitioners.
(3.) SRI A. D. Saunders, learned Counsel for the petitioners challenging the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, contended that the Tribunal committed error in allowing the revision by setting aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority dated 2. 9. 2004 granting permit to the petitioners. Learned Counsel contends that in view of the liberal policy of grant of stage carriage permit under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as interpreted by the apex Court in AIR 1992sc443, Mithilesh Garg etc. etc. v. Union of India and others etc. etc. , the existing operators had no right to object the grant of permit to the petitioners and all the reasons given by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in allowing the revision are misconceived. Learned Counsel submits that the Regional Transport Authority has no authority or jurisdiction to limit the number of permits to be granted nor the fact that the existing operators were not getting run of 220 Kms. per day was relevant for denial of permit to the petitioners. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Mukesh Kumar v. Regional Transport Authority, Ghaziabad, 2003 (2) AWC 1106 on intended operators can get permit on depositing the requisite fee irrespective of number of operators already in field. Reliance has also been placed on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in 1991 A. W. C. 850, Upendra Bahadur Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others. Sri S. N. Jaiswal, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 Kamal Kant Gupta refuting the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal has rightly allowed the revision. Learned Counsel submits that the relevant consideration for grant of permit were not considered by the Regional Transport Authority while granting permit to the petitioners. He further contended that the applications of the petitioners were rejected on 16. 6. 2004 and there was no occasion to grant permit soon thereafter. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that permit cannot be granted in the manner sd as to route could be converted into a racing ground. The judgment of the Division Bench in, Shamim Haider and another v. Regional Transport Authority, Meerut and another, AIR 1995 All 385, as well as the judgment of Mithilesh Garg etc. etc. v. Union of India and others etc. etc. (supra) and the judgment of the apex Court in Thirumalai Transport Service v. P. Samiappa Gounder, AIR 1997 SC 1029 have been relied by the learned Counsel for the respondent.;