Payal Travels vs State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Others

Hon''ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J.

WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 20.06.2011 passed in Revision No. 98/2011 by the respondent No. 1, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 08.04.2011 passed by respondent No. 2, has been dismissed.

The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner is that petitioner is holding two permanent stage carriage permits for the route Durg to Konta and return, single trip daily. The respondent No. 3 applied for grant of temporary permit on the route Jagdalpur to Kalimela. The respondent No. 2, on the application of the respondent No. 3, granted temporary permit from 01.05.2011 to 31.07.2011. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision before the respondent No. 1, challenging the order dated 08.04.2011 passed by the respondent No. 2, which was dismissed vide order dated 20.06.2011. Thus, this petition.

At the very outset, Shri Sao, learned Government Advocate and Shri Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3 submit that the period of temporary permit has already expired as it was from 01.05.2011 to 03.07.2011. Thus, this petition has become infructuous.

Shri Bajpai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the period for temporary permit has already been over, however, the question of law involved in this petition still survives as the respondent No. 3 was granted temporary permit to ply his bus on an inter-state route in which there was no vacancy for plying additional buses and the permit granted was in violation of the agreement entered into between the State of Chhattisgarh and Orissa. Both the States have entered into agreement for grant of four permits of 8 trips by each State. Shri Bajpai further submits that in an other identical matter wherein time of the permit was over, the High Court has taken cognizance of the matter.

Law in this regard is well settled that if the petition has become infructuous on the facts of the case, the question of law, however important may be, becomes of academic interest which cannot be adjudicated upon. Accordingly, the question of law raised herein may be decided in an appropriate case. (See: Basheshar Nath v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi and Rajasthan and another, Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agrawal v. Rajiv Gandhi, Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India & Others v. Cricket Association of Bengal and Others, State of Manipur & Others v. Chandan Manihar Singh4, Arnit Das v. State of Bihar and Prakash Singh Badal & Another v. State of Punjab & Others)

This Court, in Tritiya Varg Shaskiya Karmachari Grih Nirman Sahkar Samiti Maryadit v. Chhattisgarh Information Commission & Others, while considering the identical issue, observed as under:

It is well settled principle flaw that the question of law nonacademic interest cannot be adjudicated upon, the same should beleft open for adjudication, whenever the appropriate facts arises.

The case of Shiv Kumar Mishra v. President, Industrial Court & Others, was dismissed by this Court on the similar ground against which the petitioner therein preferred a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 10334/2010 before the Supreme Court, which was also dismissed vide order dated 26.03.2010, upholding the order passed by this Court.

Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the case and for the reasons stated hereinabove, this petition is dismissed.

No order as to costs.