ORDER R.A. Sharma, J.
1. Regional Transport Authority, Meerut (herein after referred to as the R.T.A.), vide its resolution dated 26-9-1994, fixed the limit of 35 for grant of stage carriage permits on Mawana-Phala-wade-Khatauli-Nawala-Mansoorpur Gao-Mansoorpur-Munnaurpur-Sindhawali-Koo-kara-Muzaffarnagar route (herein after referred as the route) and granted permits to all the applicants with the condition that only 35 permits will be issued to the grantees on the basis of "first come first serve". By the same resolution another condition of placing not more than ten years old vehicle under the permit was also imposed. Petitioners, who applied for and were granted permits by the R.T.A. by the aforesaid resolution, being aggrieved by the above condition, have filed this writ petition.
2. On 14-12-1994 this Court while grant-ing to the learned standing counsel for filing counter-affidavit, passed the following order in this writ petition :
"By this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the model condition of ten years fixed by the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut. Their grievance is that although the State Transport Authority has fixed model condition of twenty years and has issued direction to the Regional Transport Authority in this connection, but the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut, in disregard to that direction has fixed model condition of ten years. The further grievance is that the Regional Transport Authority under new Motor Vehicles Act cannot fix limits of permits on the route. Similar controversy was paised in writ petition No. 33672 of 1994, Sukhbir Singh v. Regional Transport Authority, Meerut, in which this court granted one month's time to the learned Standing counsel to file counter-affidavit. But no counter-affidavit has been filed so far. Provisions of new Motor Vehicle Act do not authorise the Regional Transport Authority to fix any limit of permit on the route. This controversy has been settled in the case of Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 443 : (1991 All LJ 1167).
Learned Standing counsel prays for and is granted one week's time more for seeking instructions and for filing counter-affidavit.
However, no counter-affidavit was filed on 10-1-1995 this court granted two weeks' and no more time to file counter-affidavit. In spite of stop order no counter-affidavit has been filed. It may also be observed that earlier another writ petition No. 33672 of 1994 was filed challenging the same order of R.T. A. in which this court, while granting time to the learned Standing counsel passed interim mandamus directing R.T. A. to issue permit to the petitioner therein ignoring ten-years model condition within four weeks or to show-cause by filing counter-affidavit within the same period provided the vehicle which may be placed by him is not more than twenty years old. Even then no counter-affidavit was filed.
3. Sub-section (3) of Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the old Act) provided for fixation of the limits before grant of stage carriage permit. However, in Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (herein after referred to as the new Act), whereby old Act has been repealed, there is no such provision providing for fixation of limits for grant of stage carriage permit, except in respect of city routes in towns with a population of not less than five lacs. Supreme Court in Mithilesh Garg. v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 443 : (1991 All. LJ 1167) has, in this connection, also laid down that under the new Act the authorities cannot fix limit for grant of permit. In Writ Petition No. 36761 of 1994, Shamom Haider v. R.T.A. decided today, we have held that it is not open to the R.T.A. to fix limits for grant of permits. We have also held that R.T.A. cannot grant permits on the basis of "first come first serve" principle. It has to apply its mind to each applicant for permit and thereafter grant permits to the suitable persons. Regional Transport Authority was, therefore, not justified to fix limit for grant of permit on the route. The order of R.T.A. fixing limit for grant of permit, as such, cannot be sustained.
4. Learned Standing Counsel in this connection, has contended that R.T.A. has fixed the limits in view of the directions issued by State Transport Appellate Tribunal (herein after referred to as the Appellate Tribunal) in Revision No. 46 of 1992, decided on 19-10-1992 and the judgment of this Court (Luck-now Bench) in writ Petition No. 1756 of 1994, Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.
5. The aforesaid judgment of the Appellate Tribunal in Revision No. 46 of 1992 (supra) and the judgment of this Court in writ petition No. 1756 of 1994 (supra) have been placed before us by the learned counsel for petitioners. The Appellate Tribunal in the above case while allowing the revision and remanding the case, filed against gram of permits on some routes, has issued the following directions to R.T.A. Dehradun, on the basis of which permits are to be granted :
"(1) That the Regional Transport Authority Deharadun, shall get a survey of the route in question carried out.
(2) That the Regional Transport Authority Dehradun, shall determine the conditions of the roads having due regard to the safety standards and pollution control measures.
(3) That the Regional Transport Authority Dehradun, shall work out the economics of the road transport service on the routes in question.
(4) That the Regional Transport Authority Deharadun, shall draw a time-table for plying the buses on the route in question at such intervals as the requirement of the flow of traffic may warrant. The said time-table shall be exhibited on the notice board in the office of its Secretary so that various applicants may incorporate the same in their applications.
(5) That the Regional Transport Authority Deharadun shall determine the requirement of additional buses and permits over the route in question after determining the frequency with which the buses shall be plied and the hours during which they shall be plied.
(6) That the Regional Transport Authority Deharadun shall investigate into the social and economic status of the various applicants and after affording a fresh opportunity of being heard to the various applicants, shall proceed to grant such number of permits and to such persons as it may deem proper having due regard to the objects of the new Motor Vehicles Act, 1988."
A Division Bench of this Conn in Shyam Lal Gupta v. Regional Transport Authority, decided on February 24, 1994 : 1994 (24) ALR 246 had declared directions Nos. 3, 5 and 6 dealing with economics of transport service, fixation of limit of permits and status of the applicant, as contained in the above order of the Appellate Tribunal, contrary to and consistent with the provisions of the- new Act and the decision of Surpeme Court in the case of Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India (supra). The relevant extract, in this connecttion, from the decision of Shyam Lal Gupta v. R. T. A. (supra) is reproduced below :
"So far as the order of this Court, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-III to the writ petition is concerned, it is an interim order passed by Division Bench of this Court, whereby the concerned authority was directed not to act mechanically in granting permits. and have due regard to the factors enumerated by the Supreme Court in the case of Mithilesh Garg (supra) as also the guidelines set up by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in Revision No. 46 of 1992, decided on 19-10-1992. State Transport Appellate Tribunal has by its judgment, referred to above required the transport authorities to work out the economics of the transport service and to determine the requirement of additional buses and permits on the route before granting permits and further to investigate into the social and economic status of the applicants before they are granted permits. These directions, issued by the Tribunal, are contrary to and are inconsistent with the object of the new Act and the decision of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of Mithilesh Garg."
As directions Nos. 3, 5 and 6 issued by the Appellate Tribunal have been declared illegal by a Division Bench of this Court on February 24, 1994 in the case of Shyam Lal Gupta (supra), it is not open to the R.T.A. to take them into consideration for the purpose of fixing limits and granting permits. It, however, appears that after the decision of Division Bench in the case of Shyam Lal Gupta (supra) another Division Bench of this' Court at Lucknow, while deciding writ petition No. 1756 of 1994 and other connected writ petitions, vide judgment dated 30-3-1994, issued the following directions :
"We are of the view that while granting permits the R.T.As./ S.T.As. should take into account the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court in Surendra Rao's case (supra) and the directions of State Transport Appellate Tribunal in the matter of grant of permits. It is further provided that in case the R.T.As/S.T.As. have granted any permit after considering the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mithilesh Garg (supra) and Surendra Rao (supra) and the directions of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal on the matter of grant of permit, the R.T.As./S.T.As. would allow the permit holder to lift the permit."
6. As the directions Nos. 3, 5 and 6 contained the aforesaid appellate order have been declared ultra vires by this court they have ceased to exist even before writ petition No. 1756 of 1994 was decided. Therefore, reference of the directions of the appellate tribunal in the judgment of this court in writ petition No. 1756 of 1994 (supra) has to be confined to the directions other than Nos. 3, 5, and 6.
7. State Transport Authority, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as S.T.A.) has fixed the model condition of twenty years for vehicles to be placed under stage carriage permits with the result that an operator is entitled to ply a vehicle which is not more than twenty years old. S.T.A. has also, in this connection, issued direcion on 9-3-1993 under sub-section (4) of Section 68, to all the R.T.As. in this State requiring them to impose only twenty years model condition for plain routes and ten years model condition for hill routes. These directions have been issued by the S.T.A. in view of the difference of opinion on the question of model condition between the R.T.As. in this State. There is no dispute that S.T.A. can issue such a direction. Direction issued by S.T.A. under the above provisions is binding on the R.T.A. which is to "give effect to and be guided by such directions". R.T.A. while granting permits by the impugned resolution has referred to the afoesaid directions of S.T.A. and was conscious of the fact of fixation twenty years model condition by it and, therefore, it has not fixed any model condition contrary to that fixed by S.T.A. What it has done is that it has granted permits to persons holding vehicles or not more than ten years old. Fixing the model condition and granting permits to better models are two different things. By model condition the maximum period up to which a vehicle can be used as a stage carriage under a permit is fixed. Without transgressing the model condition it is always open to the transport authorities to grant permits to those applicants who have vehicles of better model. Such a condition is in the interest of travelling public. The order of the R.T.A. thus is not contrary to the direction issued by the S.T.A.
8. This writ petition is accordingly partly allowed. That part of the impugned resolution dated 26-9-1994 of the R.T.A. fixing limit of permit of 35 for the route, for grant of stage carriage permit is quashed. The R.T.A. is directed to consider the request of the petitioners for issue of permits in accordance with law. Decision in this connection shall be taken by the R.T. A. within a month from the date of presentation of certified copy of this judgment. Petitioner will also file certifiedcopy of this judgment within two seeks from today.
9. Petition partly allowed.