B.R. Arora, J.@mdashThe petitioner, in this writ petition, has challenged the order dated September 6, 1991, passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, by which the learned Member of the Tribunal restrained the petitioner from operating the bus covered with the permit granted to her by the Regional Transport Authority, Ajmer, by its Resolution dated June 29, 1991, on Nagaur-Merta via Kuchera route.
2. The petitioner was granted a non-temporary stage carriage permit by the Regional Transport Authority, Ajmer, on April 29, 1991, on Nagaur-Merta via Kuchera route. This grant of permit in favour of the petitioner was challenged by one Surajbhan Singh before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Alongwith the revision petition, an application for stay of the operation of the order dated June 29, 1991, was, also, preferred and on that stay application, the learned Member of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, restrained the petitioner from operating the bus covered with the permit, granted to her vide order dated June 29,1991. The petitioner, thereafter surrendered her permit and moved a fresh application before the Regional Transport Authority, Ajmer, and the Regional Transport Authority, by its order dated September 6,1991, granted one non-temporary stage carriage permit in favour of the petitioner on Nagaur-Degana via Kuchaman-ldawa route. One Surajbhan Singh challenged the grant of permit in favour of the petitioner before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. Alongwith the revision petition, an application for the grant of stay was, also, moved and the learned Member of the Tribunal, by its order dated October 15, 1991, allowed the stay petition and restrained the petitioner from plying her vehicle under the permit granted to her by the Regional Transport Authority on September 6, 1991, in view of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3828 of 1991 (Surajbhan Singh Ramdeo Sikhwal v. Union of India and Ors.). Aggrieved with the order dated October 15, 1991, restraining the petitioner from plying her bus, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 Surajbhan Singh, who has filed the caveat, and perused the record of the case.
4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was granted non-temporary stage carriage permit on the Nagaur-Degana route via Kuchera-ldawa, while the Division Bench of this Court , in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3S28 of 1991 (Surajbhan Singh Ramdeo Sikhwal v. Union of India and Ors.], by the order dated August 26,1991, restrained the State Transport Authority or the Regional transport Authority from issuing the permit without the permission of the Court with respect to Kuchera Degana route which are two different routes. The High Court, nowhere restrained the respondents to grant or issue to permit on the part of the route. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3, on the other hand, has supported the order, passed by the Member, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the order passed by the learned Member of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.
6. It is not in dispute that while admitting D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3828 of 1991 (Surajbhan Singh Ramdeo Sikhwal v. Union of India and Ors.], on August 26, 1991, this Court directed the State Transport Authority, Rajasthan, Jaipur, and/or the Regional Transport Authority to consider any further application for grant of permit, but no permit be actually issued without obtaining the permission of this Court . It is, also, not in dispute that the writ petition, filed by Surajbhan Singh, relates to the Kuchera-Degana route and Kuchera-Degana route is a part of Nagaur-Dagana route via Kuchera-ldawa, over which the petitioner was granted permit. Whether Nagaur-Degana route or Kuchera-Degana route are two different routes, need not to be considered in the present case as the writ petition, filed by Surajbhan Singh has already been dismissed by this Court vide its judgment dated December 13, 1991. As the Writ petition, filed by Surajbhan Singh has already been dismissed the stay order, passed by this Court , automatically comes to an end. The learned Member of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, restrained the petitioner to ply her bus on the route in question only on the ground that there was a stay granted by the High Court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3828 of 1991, by which the issuing of permit was stayed and as there is no stay order, restraining the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, or the Regional Transport Authority from issuing the permit to the petitioner, the permit can, now, be issued to the petitioner.
7. So far as the other points are concerned, as the revision petition is pending before the Member, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, the petitioner a agitate her grievances before the Member, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, who will decide the revision petition in accordance with law after hearing both the parties.
8. With these observations, the writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is disposed-of.
