Guman Mal Lodha, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed against the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter to be called as 'the Tribunal'), by which the order of the Regional Transport Authority granting permit to the petitioner -- Narendra Singh, was quashed. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the petitioners' vehicle was of the year 1967 (1965) model as per application filed by the petitioner, before the Regional Transport Authority but he got permit on the representation that the vehicle was of 1967 model. It was also held that other operators had more experience and the son of Smt. Phoolidevi was unemployed. On a consideration of the comparative merits of the parties and further taking a view of the fact that petitioner failed to produce Registration Certificate before the Tribunal, the permit, according to the petitioner, was cancelled.
2. Mr. Mehta, appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Aidan v. The Regional Transport Officer (1966 Raj LW 643), according to which this Court has explained the principle, at which the model condition is to be examined and considered. Order of registration of the vehicle has been held to be precise consideration for the purposes of applying Rule 84-A and the instructions issued therein for model conditions. In view of this. Mr. Mehta's submission is that since the Registration of the petitioner's vehicle is of 1967 and further because as per the certificate of the Director, Medical and Health, it remained off the road for 8 years, it fulfils the model condition and there has been no misrepresentation or concealment.
3. Mr. Sharma, appearing for the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 vehemently opposed the writ petition. According to him, withholding of the registration certificate before the Tribunal and misrepresentation before the Regional Transport Authority were deliberate. It was pointed out that the vehicle of the petitioner was never a bus but it was an ambulance earlier and for similar reasons that a pick-up vehicle converted into bus was sought to be availed of by another operator Bhanaram; permit was not granted to him. It was pointed out that if the registration certificate would have been produced before the Tribunal, this important feature of the case would have weighed with the Tribunal to reject the permit, of the petitioner. It was also pointed out that the other party in whose favour permit was granted, has not been impleaded as party and as he was not impleaded as party, petition deserved to be dismissed on that ground alone.
4. Lastly it was argued that is per the view of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Abdul Rehman v. S. T. A. T. (AIR 1978 SC 949), interference under Article 226 of the Constitution would not normally be made against the order of the special Tribunals or authorities constituted under law and this Court cannot convert, itself into an appellate forum.
5. Mr. Mehta, learned Advocate for the petitioner, confronted with the above submissions and facts placed by Mr. Sharma, argued that there is no bar under the Motor Vehicles Act that a pickup or an ambulance cannot be converted into a bus. He also submitted that it is for the registration authorities to be satisfied, whether a particular vehicle should be registered as bus or not, and the R. T. A. cannot probe further into the matter when neither there was any misrepresentation nor any concealment. It was also submitted that the person in whose name, fresh permit has been granted by the R. T. A., has been joined as party and others were not necessary parties.
6. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, I am of the opinion that the material in the form of the original registration certificate and the certificate of the Director of Medical and Health, which are sought to be used before this Court by Mr. Mehta to repel the finding of the Tribunal about concealment and misrepresentation should have been produced before the tribunal with a written application. It is true that in a given case, the Tribunal may require or may not require these documents but when the Tribunal has expressly mentioned that the petitioner failed to produce them in spite of the fact that they were demanded, this Court cannot hold that this finding of the Tribunal is incorrect on facts. It should not be forgotten that scope of the judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution is very limited and this Court cannot convert itself into an appellate forum to scrutinize afresh and hold a de novo inquiry about the various facts and controversies which were actively raised before the R. T. A., and the Tribunal. In case, the Registration certificate would have been produced before the Tribunal in respect of that, if the Tribunal would have acted against the principles of Aidan's case (1966 Raj LW 643) (supra) then this Court would have interfered and quashed the order of the Tribunal. However, on the basic facts about the non-production of the Registration certificate and the application which was filed before the R. T. A. containing the year of model of vehicle as 1965, this Court cannot take a different view than what has been taken by the Tribunal. The question of application of principles of Aidan's case (supra) cannot arise. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to deal with another objection of Mr. Sharma, whether other parties were necessary parties or not.
7. All that can be said is that on the material placed before the Tribunal in appeal, judgments suffer from no infirmity, which can be termed as an error of jurisdiction or error apparent on the fare of record warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. As pointed out by Mr. Sharma in Abdul Rehman v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal's case (AIR 1978 SC 949) (supra) Hon'ble the Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under:
'The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution should be reluctant to interfere with or disturb the decision of specially constituted authorities or tribunals under the Act especially when the Legislature has entrusted the task of granting or renewing the stage carriage permits to the aforesaid authorities or tribunals which are expected to be fully conversant with the procedure and practice and the relevant matters which should engage their attention under the provisions contained in the Act. In dealing with applications for writs of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court does not exercise the jurisdiction of an Appellate Court and the findings or conclusions on questions of fart could hardly be re-examined or disturbed by it under Article 226 of the Constitution unless the well recognised tests in that behalf were satisfied '
9. Undoubtedly, questions raised safer as production of registration certificate and mentioning of the model in the application is concerned are questions of fact and on those questions of fact, when the Tribunal has made observations against the petitioner, this Court cannot re-examine those conclusions and findings, more so by taking note of registration certificate now which is sought to be produced here.
10. The result is that this writ petition therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs.