A SOMU ACHARI Vs. R RAJAMANICKAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was the respondent in an appeal filed by the respondent in this civil revision petition before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The subject matter of the appeal related to the grant renewal of a stage carriage permit for the bus MDS 4009 (Since replaced by MDU 8715) in respect of the route Kambainallur to Hogainaikkal via Dharmapuri for a period of five year form 9-6-1971. The respondent herein had also applied for grant of a stage carriage permit to him to ply on the same route. The relevant dates may now be noticed. The normal permit of the petitioner was to expire on 9-6-1971. He made an application for renewal on 9-2-1971. Representations were called for under Section 57 (3) of the Motor vehicles Act on 5-4-1971, and the last date for filing such representations was fixed at 30-4-1971. The Respondent herein sent his representations on 28-4-1971, and also made a counter application for the grant of the permit in his favor which was also notified in the usual manner on 4-5-1971. Again representations on the counter application made by the respondent were called for and a date for filing such representations was also fixed. At the meeting of the subject by the Regional transport authority on 18-9-1971, the respondent's application was refused and the petitioner's application for renewal was granted. Against this order the respondent filed an appeal. The appellate authority allowed the appeal after considering the merits and qualifications of both the petitioner and the respondent. The appellate authority found that the petitioner was not a suitable person for being considered for renewal in preference to the respondent who applied for an independent grant of the permit to himself. While coming to this conclusion the appellate authority took into consideration three suspensions suffered by the pettier in respect of non-adherence to schedule of timings, overload of passengers and missing of trips. The appellate Tribunal was of the view that they were serious offenses from the point of view of public interest and therefore denied renewal to the petitioner. It also found as fact that the respondent had experience of 8 year and 7 months, has his own workshop, resides on the route and was a single bus operator with a clean history and therefore he deserved an encouragement. The appeal therefore was allowed. As against this the present civil revision petition has been filed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner did not touch upon the merits but argued a legal question about the want of jurisdiction the part of the authorities in having entertained an application by the respondent for the grant of an independent permit when an application for renewal was contemporaneously on file for consideration. The main ground of attack can be stated in the words of the petitioner as presented in the grounds of revision:

(3.) IT is admitted that these grounds were not urged at any time before the original or the appellate authority. It is equally not denied that these grounds could have been urged before such authorities and the lower tribunals had the jurisdiction to decide one way or the other if such a contention was raised before them. But what is urged is that notwithstanding the fact that such a contention has not been raised, as the application made by the respondent was not in conformity with the prescriptions as to time, etc. , laid down under the Motor Vehicles Act and the rules made thereunder, there is a total absence of jurisdiction in the tribunal and therefore the consequential orders passed by the appellate authority refusing the renewal as if the application for an independent grant by the petitioner was maintainable is a nullity and has to be set aside. In the conspectus of the above, the legal question which arises is whether the application made by the petitioner on 28/30-4-1971 for the grant of a stage carriage permit on the route kambainallur to Hoganiakkal is a valid application and whether it is maintainable by the authorities and whether such a question as to non-maintainability can be raised for the first time in this Court.