MADHYA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL M P GWALIOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the grant of permits to the respondents 6 to 8 by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The connected petitions of Mohanlal and Ors. v. S.T.A.T. and Ors. M.P. No. 528 of 1975, Rangnath v. S.T.A.T. and Ors. M.P. No. 775 of 1975 and Samrathmal Agarwal v. S.T.A.T. and Ors. M.P. No. 1354 of 1975 are also disposed of as they arise out of the same order and common questions are involved. The said petitioners are also parties in this petition.

(2.) The Regional Transport Authority, Indore invited applications for three return trip permits on the regional route Dhar-Badwani (via Mangod, Amzera, Zirabad, Awalda, Manawar, Singhana, Chikalda, Rajghat). There were as many as 43 applicants and the R. T. A. by order dated 22-5-1972 granted one permit to each of the respondents 3 to 5 i.e. Mohanlal, Bhoj Yatayat Sahakari Samiti Ltd. and Gendalal for a period of three years. Appeals were preferred against the order by the present petitioner and the respondents 6 to 11. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal has set aside the order of the R.T.A. and instead granted permits to the respondents 6 to 8 i. e. Abdul Hakim, M/s. Dayabhai & Co. and Ramcharanlal by order dated 27-5-1975. Here it may be mentioned that during pendency of the appeals, the M.P.S. R.T. Corporation published the draft Scheme No. 80 in M.P. Rajpatra on 18-5-1973, proposing nationalisation of the inter-State routes Ujjain-Ahmadabad via Indore, Dohad etc. The present route i. e. Dhar-Badwani overlapped the proposed routes on the portion between Dhar and Mangod for a distance of 15 miles. Aggrieved by the order, the original grantees i. e. the respondents 3 to 5 have preferred M.P. No. 528/75, respondent No. 10 Rangnath M. P. No. 775/1975, respondent No. 11 Samrathmal M.P. No. 1354/1975 and the present petition by the M.P.S.R.T. Corporation.

(3.) The case of the M.P.S.R.T. Corporation is that its claim has been rejected on untenable and flimsy grounds by both the R.T A. and the S.T.A.T. and the Appellate Tribunal also erred in granting permits to the respondents 6 to 8 as there was bar in granting the permits in view of Sub-section (1-D) of Section 68-F of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, because the draft scheme No. 80 was published during pendency of appeals and the present route overlapped a portion of the proposed nationalised routes. The original grantees i.e. Mohenlal, Bhoj Yatayat Sahakari Samiti Ltd. and Gendlal in their petition further submitted that their grants have been wrongly set aside by the Appellate Tribunal, mainly because they were small operators and that Mohanlal had experience only on temporary permits. The respondents Rangnath and Samarathmal in their petitions have contended that both the authorities erred in rejecting their claims in spite of their being superiors in all respects in comparison to the original and the present grantees. Samarathmal has further contended that the authorities had no jurisdiction to consider the claims of those applicants who had applied in pursuance to the earlier notification dated 24-5-1968, which was quashed by this Court in M.P.S.R.T. Corporation v. R.T.A., Indore M.P. No. 352 of 1968 = (reported in AIR 1969 Madh Pra 182) and although it was clearly mentioned in the subsequent notification dated 7-21969 that all earlier applications made in pursuance to the repealed notification have stood cancelled. It is, however, contended by both of them that Subsection (1-D) of Section 68-F is not attracted inasmuch as the proposed nationalised routes are inter-State routes whereas the present route is only regional one and so the present route is outside the draft scheme. Moreover, it is said that the proposed scheme can have no application to pending appeal, the original grant by the R.T.A. being prior to the publication of the draft scheme No. 80. In reply the respondents 3 to 5 i. e. the present grantees denied that the grants in their favour were illegal or invalid. The appellate Tribunal have taken into consideration all relevant facts in applying the correct principles. The route being regional one, the draft scheme No. 80 for inter-State route cannot affect the present route. It is also said that it is not open to this Court under its writ jurisdiction to reappraise the material on record and come to another conclusion on merits. The respondent No. 9 Balmukund has neither entered appearance nor has challenged the order of the S.T.A.T. by separate petition. It is further said that the petitions are liable to be rejected on the short ground that all the claimants have not been joined as parties.