- (1.) M. Katju, J. This writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U. P. dated 27-9-1995 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) and for a writ of certiorari to quash the resolution dated 14/15-6-1993 passed by the State Transport Authority. U. P. granting stage carriage permits to the respondents.
(2.) HEARD Sri L. P. Naithani, learned Senior Advocate and Sri. A. D. Saunders for the petitioner, and Sri K. N. Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate and Sri A. R. Dubey for the private respondents as well as learned standing Counsel for the respondents. The facts of the case are that there is an inter-regional route known as Muzaf-far Nagar-Bhopa Morna-Bijnore route. A sketch map in this connection is An nexure-1 to the writ petition. This route was earlier passing from Morana direct to Bijnore via a pontoon bridge at Rawli Ghat and it was notified under Section 68-D (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 on 28-9- 1977 published in the U. P. Gazette on 5- 11 -1977 True copy of the said notification is Annexure S. C. A. 3 to the supplementary counter-affidavit of Vish nu Datta Paliwal. A perusal of the said notification shows that existing operations were allowed to continue operating vide clause. 4 of the said notification. The petitioners were existing operators since their permits were issued prior to 5-11-1977 and hence then they continued to operate. Since the major portion of the route lies within Meerut region, it is the RTA Meerut region which is entitled to grant/renew the permits or the route. It is alleged in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that the RTA Meerut granted permits on the route by its resolution dated 4-9-1989 and 21-9-1989 which were challenged before this Court in separate writ petitions which were allowed and such resolutions were quashed on the ground that the route is notified and as such the RTA had no jurisdiction to grant permits. It is alleged in paragraph 6 of the writ petition that the judgments were chal lenged in the Supreme Court which dis missed the SLP. Appeal on 24-4-1991. In paragraph 7 it is alleged that the State Transport Authority granted permits on 29-9-1989, but the same were set aside by the Tribunal.
(3.) IN paragraph 12 of the writ petition it is alleged that by resolution dated 14/15-6-1993, the State Transport Authority il legally granted 38 permanent stage carriage permits although the route was notified vide Annexure. 2 to the writ peti tion. IN paragraph 16 of the writ petition it is stated that in view of the clear bar of Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 no such permits could have been legally granted. Aggrieved against the resolution 'the petitioner filed a revision before the respondent No. 1 which was dismissed on 27-9-1995. Hence this peti tion. Sri K. N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondent has raised a prelimi nary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable because as held by the Tribunal in the impugned order dated, 27-9-1995-the writ petitioners had not right for renewal of their permits and they had to apply for a fresh grant of permit as held by the Supreme Court in Gajraj Singh v. S. T. A. P. , 1996 (8) JT 356. The petitioners' permits were to expire in 1991 and they were renewed in 1991 after the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 came into force. They were again renewed in 1996, and according to Sri K. N. Tripathi, the second renewal of 1996 is illegal. In my opinion, it is not open to the respondents to challenge the renewal of the petitioners permit at this late stage, and that too in collateral proceedings. Since nobody challenged the renewal of the petitioner's permits in 1996 it is not open to challenge the same now. In fact till today to revision or appeal or writ petition has been filed against the renewal of the petitioner's permit in 1996. In the absence of such direct challenge to the renewal of the petitioners' permit, I am not inclined to entertain this objection in col lateral proceedings. Hence the prelimi nary objection of Sri K. N. Tripathi is rejected.;