- (1.) HEARD Shri A.D. Saunders, appearing for the petitioners in the first two writ petitions, the Learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Shri S.N. Jaiswal for the respondent No.5 in Writ Petition No.22377 of 2009. In Writ Petition No.29531 of 2009, Shri S.N. Jaiswal has appeared for the petitioner and Shri A.D. Saunders for the respondent no.2 and the Learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been complete in the last two writ petitions and with the consent of the parties all the writ petitions are being heard and disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the above three writ petitions are: Writ Petition No.24006 of 1997, has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 30/5/1996 passed by The State Transport Appellate Tribunal dismissing the Appeal Nos.59 of 1987 filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 20/21-2-1987 of the State Transport Authority, (hereinafter referred to as "STA") refusing to renew the permit of the petitioner. The Father of the petitioner Shri Raghubir Saran was holder of a permit of a Inter State Route known as Delhi-Ghaziabad. The permit was valid up to 15/10/1985 and an application on 16/5/1985 for renewal was made before the STA. On 01/11/1985, the Father of the petitioner Shri Raghubir Saran died. After the death of the father of the petitioner Shri Raghubir Saran his two sons namely Rajendra Prasad Singhal and Shri Ramesh Chandra Singhal had applied for renewal of the permit. By means of an order dated 20/21-02-1987, the STA refused to renew the permit. Against which refusal an Appeal No.59 of 1987, was filed by Rajendra Prasad Singhal and Ramesh Chandra Singhal. The appeal was dismissed along with two other appeals. The Appellate Authority took the view that the grounds given for refusal to renew the permit was not correct. It was held by the Appellate Authority that the refusal of the renewal of the permit on the ground that the permit holder had been convicted of an offence under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was not justified. However, the Appellate Authority took the view that the permits were not capable of renewal in view of the Supreme Court judgment in Secretary, Quilon Distt. Motor Transport Workers' Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs. Regional Transport Authority And Others, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 210. The appeal was dismissed as infructuous. Against the said order of the appellate authority dated 30/5/2006, Writ Petition No.24006/1997 was filed. This Court passed an interim order on 29/7/1997, staying the order of the Appellate Tribunal. Petitioner's case is that he had been continuing plying his vehicles during the pendency of the appeal by virtue of an order passed under Section 134 (1-A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
(3.) WRIT Petition No.22377 of 2009, has been filed by Shri Rajendra Prasad Singhal challenging the order dated 19/3/2009, passed by STA by which the application of Rajendra Prasad Singhal for transfer of the permit has been rejected. By the same order temporary permit was granted to Shri Vikram Singh, i.e. respondent no.5. The petitioner Rajendra Prasad Singhal after the death of his father on 01/11/1985, had applied for transfer of the permit. The issue of renewal/transfer of the permit was considered by the STA in its meeting on 20/21-2-1987, by which order the renewal of the permit was refused. Against which Appeal No. 59/87 was filed which was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal on 30/5/1996 against which the Writ Petition No.24006 of 1997 was filed. A decision was taken on 18/12/2008, by the STA that after expiry of the permit on 15/10/1985, the permit was not in existence, hence there is no justification for transfer of non-existing permit, hence subject to orders passed in writ petition No.24006/1997, the transfer of permit is refused. By the writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the Resolution dated 18/12/2008, refusing the transfer of the permit as well as the order dated 19/3/2009, by which temporary permit was granted to Shri Vikram Singh. This Court granted interim order on 28/4/2009, staying the order dated 19/3/2009 as well as the resolution dated 18/12/2008.;