S.R.Singh, J. - (1.) The grievance of the petitioners in the instant petition is centred on two orders firstly the order dated 25.5.1998 passed by the State Transport Authority, U. P., Lucknow rejecting their application for renewal of Stage Carriage Permit, and secondly, the revisional order dated 31.8.1998, by which their revision No. 33 of 1998 preferred against the order dated 25.5.1998 came to be dismissed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U. P., Lucknow.
(2.) The facts draped in brevity and shorn of unnecessary details are that the Stale Transport Authority. U. P.. Lucknow (in short the S.T.A.'). released 26 Stage Carriage Permits by resolution/order dated 23.11.1992 including one Permit in favour of the petitioners to ply their vehicle on the route in question, namely, Meerut-Gangoh via Rohta-Barnava-Daha-Budhana-Shamit-Jhinjhana-Bidault (New Yamuna Bridge)-Basech, The order dated 23.11.1992 was taken up in challenge by Sheetal Prasad, Gajraj Singh and Ugrasen before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U. P., Lucknow (in short the 'S.T.A.T.') in three separate revisions (being revision Nos., 335 of 1992. 336 of 1992 and 1 of 1993 respectively). Sheetal Prasad Jain was an existing Operalor on Muzaffamagar-Budhana-Kandhla-lssopurtil and allied routes. Cajraj Singh, revisionist in revision No. 336 of 1992 had been plying his vehicle on Rohtah-Parnava-Baraut and allied routes, while Ugrasen was an Operator on Muzaffarnagar-Shamiti-Kairana-Yamuna Bridge and allied routes. The Tribunal allowed the three revisions aforestated and set aside the resolution/order dated 23.11.1992 by means of the order dated 21.6.1993 premised on the ground that the portions of the route in question were part of notified routes, the draft scheme of which was published-under Section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939 (in short the 'repealed Act') on 13.2.86. Subsequently, the scheme came to be approved by Notification No. 1635/30-2-92-365/85, dated May 29, 1993. The petitioner and other aggrieved operators instituted a writ petition, being No. 1531/M/S/1993, at the Lucknow Bench of this Court, in which following interim order which still endures was passed on 1.7.1993. "Until further orders, the impugned order dated 21.6.1993 (Annexure-8) is hereby stayed. It shall be open to move an application for modification or vacation of this interim order".
(3.) The Permit granted in favour of petitioners was valid upto 30.11.1997. Therefore, an application came to be moved by them for renewal of the permit. The matter received consideration of the State Transport Authority. U. P., Lucknow in its meeting held on 25.5.1998. On behalf of the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, an oral objection was mooted that part of the route had since been notified vide notification dated 29.5.1993 and as such, application for renewal of the permit was liable to be rejected in view of the provisions contained in Section 103 (2) (g) read with Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the 'new Act'). On behalf of the petitioner, it was canvassed before the S.T.A.. U. P., Lucknow that the route in question did not form part of the notified route, that in any case, the operation of notification dated 29.5.1993 had been stayed by the High Court in number of writ petitions. The application for renewal of permit met the fate of rejection vide order/resolution dated 25.5.1998 passed by the State Transport Authority, U. P., Lucknow which order received approbation of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U. P.. Lucknow vide order dated 31.8.1998. It is these two orders which have been bracketed for challenge in the instant petition.;