ABDUL MATEEN Vs. RAM KAILASH PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Patna High Court. Brief facts necessary for present purposes are these. It appears that a new route Gopalganj -Pahlezghat was advertised by the North Bihar Regional Transport Authority in July 1957 and applications were invited for permanent stage carriage permits and the advertisement stated that there were two vacancies on the route. A number of persons applied for the two permits and in January, 1958 the Regional Transport Authority granted permits to the appellant and another person. This order was taken in appeal to the Appellate Authority, which however failed. Thereafter Sudhakar Sharma, who is one of the respondents, before us, moved the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution and in April 1960 the High Court quashed the order of the Appellate Authority on the basis of the judgment of this court in Ram Gopal vs. Anant Prasad (1959) 2 Suppl. SCR 692. The case then went back to the Appellate Authority for re-hearing. The Appellate Authority thereupon modified the order of the Regional Transport Authority and the permit granted to the appellant was cancelled and in his place a permit was granted to Sudhakar Sharma; the permit granted to the other person was not interfered with. Thereupon, the appellant made an application to the State Government under S. 64 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, No. 4 of 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), as amended by the Bihar Amendment Act No. 27 of 1950, which provides that

(2.) The main question for decision in this appeal is whether the State Government acting under S. 64-A of the Bihar Amendment Act had the power to increase the number of permits for which applications had been invited by the Regional Transport Authority. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the State Government has the same power under S. 64-A as the Regional Transport Authority has, as held by this Court in Ram Gopal's case, (supra) and it was therefore open to the State Government to increase the number of permits as the Regional Transport Authority would always have the power to increase the number of permits whenever it thought necessary to do so.

(3.) In order to appreciate the arguments put forward on behalf of the appellant, it is necessary to refer to the scheme of the Act in the matter of granting stage carriage permits. The scheme of the Act for the control of transport vehicle is to be found in Chap. IV. Section 42 provides that