CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the judgment and order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 7.11.2000 (Annex.9), by which the revision filed by respondent No. 4 has been allowed and the variation of conditions of permit in favour of petitioners has been quashed.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioners are the stage carriage permit-holders on Pillibanga Mandi to Manewallah intra-regional route falling under the territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner (for short, "the R.T.A."). THE said route runs in 52 Km. in length and altogether 10 permits had been granted on the said route. Petitioners applied for variation of conditions of their permit under the provisions of Sec. 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act") to curtail the portion between 24 PBN to Rajasthan Canal and for inclusion of Prempura, 24 PBN, 1 LLP, 3 LNP to Rajasthan Canal. THE R.T.A., Bikaner considered the matter in its meeting held on 28.3.2000 (Annex.3) and resolved to grant the applied variation, i.e. curtailment and inclusion. Respondent No. 4 filed a revision against the said Resolution of the R.T.A. dated 28.3.2000 and subsequent order dated 27.5.2000 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal) on the ground that the impugned variation was against the public interest and, thus, as it caused great inconvenience to the commuters, it was liable to be quashed. Persons living there had to pay more fare and spend more time. THE Tribunal has allowed the revision. Hence this petition. Mr. B.L. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioners, has urged that respondent No. 4 had no locus standi to maintain the revision before the Tribunal as he was not an "aggrieved person" within the meaning of Sec. 89/90 of the Act; the revision was barred by limitation as the same had been filed after expiry of the statutory limitation and the finding recorded by the Tribunal that variation was against the public interest, is perverse. On the other hand, Mr. Sangeet Lodha, learned counsel for the respondent No.4, has defended the judgment of the Tribunal urging that public interest is supreme and as the order has been passed in public interest, it does not require to be quashed. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Issue of Locus Standi: Sec. 89 and 90 of the Act provide for remedy of appeal and revision against the order passed by the R.T.A. by the "person aggrieved." The Tribunal has held that as by diversion the respondent No. 4 suffered personal inconvenience because of non- availability of the vehicle from his village and he had to travel nine kilometres to reach the distance of four kilometres and spend more money, he was a person aggrieved. While considering this issue, the Tribunal has over simplified the problem. The Tribunal ought to have defined the said expression in context of the Act. The "person aggrieved" means a person who is wrongfully deprived of his entitlement which he is legally entitled to receive and it does not include any kind of disappointment or personal inconvenience. "Person aggrieved" means a person who is injured or he is adversely affected in a legal sense. (Vide K.N. Lakshminarasimaiah vs. Secretary, Mysore S.T.A.T., (1).
(3.) WHETHER a person is injured in strict legal sense, must be determined by the nature of the injury considering the special facts and circumstances involving in each case. A fanciful or sentimental grievance may not be sufficient to confer a standi to sue upon the individual. There must be injuria or a legal grievance, as the law can appreciate and not a stat pro ratione valuntas reasons. In Thiruvengadam vs. Muthu Chatiar (2) it has been held that a person can be said to be aggrieved if apart from the general interest, such a person, as a member of the public, pas particular or special interest in the subject matter supposed to be wrongly decided. In S.M. Transport Ltd. vs. Raman & Raman (3), the Full Bench of Madras High Court, while considering the provisions of Madras Motor Vehicles Act, considered the issue and approved the law laid down in Rex vs. Richmond Confirming Authority, Ex-parte Hobbit, (4) and Rex vs. Groom, ex-parte, Cobbold, (5), and laid down the principle as under:- "The true principle is to determine whether the applicant has an interest distinct from the general inconvenience which may be suffered by the law being wrongly administered." ;