JASPREET SINGH ,J. - (1.) The petitioner by means of the instant petition assails the order dated 09.08.2018 passed in Revision No.53/2016 as well as order dated 29.03.2019 passed in Misc. Case No.66/2018 by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal at Lucknow. In order to put the controversy in a perspective, certain facts giving rise to the above petition are being mentioned hereinafter.
(2.) The petitioner is a holder of a regular stage carriage permit for the route Lucknow-Kursi-Tikaitganj-Mehamoodabad and the said route is covered by Vehicle No.UP-32-CZ-3245 and is valid upto 12.07.2020. In respect of the aforesaid route, six permits were issued and thereafter in the year 1981 certain extensions were granted. Later, as per the approved scheme of 15th October, 1984 which included six old permit holders and they were permitted to ply and operate on the route in question Lucknow-Kursi-Tikaitganj-Mehamoodabad along with the vehicles of the State Transport Undertaking with the condition that they shall not pick up or drop the passengers in between Lucknow-Kursi-Tikaitganj-Mehamoodabad or between the places in either directions. It has been pleaded that the aforesaid route in question is about 60 kilometers out of which the notified operation of the route is about 36 kilometers and the petitioner with other five permit holders are plying their vehicles. Since, there were large number of vehicles plying on the non-notified route. One of the existing operator of the route in question namely Smt. Sarita Srivastava preferred a Writ Petition before this Court bearing No.897 (M/B) of 2013 calling in question the illegal plying of the vehicles on the route in question. However, despite the order passed by the Court, the enforcement staff of the transport Department could not stop the illegal plying of the vehicles on the route in question. It is in this backdrop, it has been submitted that on 22.08.2015, the U.P. State Transport Corporation applied for 20 temporary permits on the route in question. It has further been submitted that deliberately the date of the application for the temporary permits was indicated as 21.08.2015 though the requisite court fee was only deposited on 22.08.2015 and it is further pleaded that the respondent No.3 granted ten permits in favour of the U.P. State Transport Corporation on the same day i.e. 22.08.2015 said to have been passed on a survey report, which is also said to have been conducted on 22.08.2015 which reported that there was a need of 15 additional vehicles on the route in question. The petitioners submit that there was no survey, which was ever conducted on 22.08.2015 and it was merely a paper compliance.
(3.) The grant of such additional permits was assailed before this Court by means of Writ Petition No.8672 (M/B) of 2015 wherein the order dated 22.08.2015 as well as the order dated 08.09.2015 whereby the additional permits were issued. This Court by means of the order dated 21.09.2015 stayed the operation of the orders dated 22.08.2015 and 08.09.2015. It has further been submitted that once the order passed by this Court was placed before the respondent No.3, therefore, being infuriated it considered 20 more applications of the respondent No.4 Corporation and without considering the relevant factors, which are required to be considered, it granted 20 permanent permits in favour of the U.P. State Transport Corporation in respect of the route in question. The petitioners being aggrieved against the aforesaid grant of 20 permits vide order dated 15.10.2015, filed a revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal as provided under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The revision filed by the petitioners was accompanied by an application for condonation of delay and it is stated that the Tribunal was pleased to consider the application for condonation of delay and thereafter it condoned the delay and admitted the revision. It has further been submitted that the Corporation filed its reply to the revision to which the petitioners filed its rejoinder. It has further been stated that the matter was finally heard and argued on 04.01.2018, however, on account of non-availability of the stenographer, the orders could not be passed on 18.06.2018 and the matter was fixed for rehearing on 17.07.2018. On 17.07.2018, the Tribunal after hearing the arguments of the respective parties on the question of maintainability again, reserved the order and fixed on 09.08.2018 for pronouncement of the orders on the question of maintainability. ;