Guman Mal Lodha, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed against the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter to be called as 'the Tribunal'), by which the order of the Regional Transport Authority granting permit to the petitioner -- Narendra Singh, was quashed. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the petitioners' vehicle was of the year 1967 (1965) model as per application filed by the petitioner, before the Regional Transport Authority but he got permit on the representation that the vehicle was of 1967 model. It was also held that other operators had more experience and the son of Smt. Phoolidevi was unemployed. On a consideration of the comparative merits of the parties and further taking a view of the fact that petitioner failed to produce Registration Certificate before the Tribunal, the permit, according to the petitioner, was cancelled.
(2.) Mr. Mehta, appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Aidan v. The Regional Transport Officer (1966 Raj LW 643), according to which this Court has explained the principle, at which the model condition is to be examined and considered. Order of registration of the vehicle has been held to be precise consideration for the purposes of applying Rule 84-A and the instructions issued therein for model conditions. In view of this. Mr. Mehta's submission is that since the Registration of the petitioner's vehicle is of 1967 and further because as per the certificate of the Director, Medical and Health, it remained off the road for 8 years, it fulfils the model condition and there has been no misrepresentation or concealment.
(3.) Mr. Sharma, appearing for the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 vehemently opposed the writ petition. According to him, withholding of the registration certificate before the Tribunal and misrepresentation before the Regional Transport Authority were deliberate. It was pointed out that the vehicle of the petitioner was never a bus but it was an ambulance earlier and for similar reasons that a pick-up vehicle converted into bus was sought to be availed of by another operator Bhanaram; permit was not granted to him. It was pointed out that if the registration certificate would have been produced before the Tribunal, this important feature of the case would have weighed with the Tribunal to reject the permit, of the petitioner. It was also pointed out that the other party in whose favour permit was granted, has not been impleaded as party and as he was not impleaded as party, petition deserved to be dismissed on that ground alone.;