DINESH KUMAR Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition and the above connected writ petition raise common question of facts and law and are, therefore being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) FOR purposes of Motor Vehicles Act, 19*8 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) there is a route know as Bulandshahr-Aurangabad-Lakbauti-Khan- pur-Amarpur-Dhandhiani and allied routes (hereinafter referred to as the route). The route lies within the jurisdiction of Regional transport authority, Meerut. The Regional Transport Authority invited applications for grant of permanent stage carriage permit on the route. The petitioners of these writ petitions in response to said invitation submitted applications for grant of permanent stage carriage permits on the route. The Regional Transport Authority in its meeting held on 22-9-1989 granted permits to the petitioners Repon- dent no. 2 who is an existing operator of the route challenged the resolution dated 22-9-1989 by filing revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U. P. Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal). The Tribunal by its order dated 25-5-1990 allowed the revision on the ground that the notification published on 22-9-1989 reconstituted the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut by revoking the earlier notification and, therefore, the earlier Regional Transport Authority had no jurisdiction to consider the applications and grant any permit. It is aeainst this order that the petitioners have come up before this court by means of these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) IN State of Maharastra v. Miyer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722, a question arose whether the respondent therein could He convicted for importing gold in INdia contrary to the provisions of Foreign Exchange regulation Act 1947 in disregard of a notification issued by Reserve Bank of INdia in official Gazette. The Reserve Bank of INdia in this case issued a notification published in official Gazette on 24-11-1962 in supersession to earlier notification The act of the respondent in this case in importing gold in this country was although in accordance with the earlier notification dated 25-8- 1948 but was in breach of notification published on 24-11-1962. The respondent in this case has left Zurich on 27-11-1962 and it was argued that he could not have had the knowledge of the notification of the Reserve Bank of INdia which was published in the Gazette on 24-11-1962 in INdia. INspite of the fact that section 8 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 did not provide for the manner in which the Reserve Bank of INdia would provide for general or special permission, by reason of the Gazette notification it has held that the respondent must be attributed with the knowledge of the contents thereof in the eye of law. A Full Bench of this court in case of Avdesh Singh v Bikarama Ahir, AIR. 1975 AIId. 324. held that the publication of statement in Official Gazette amounts in law as effective publication relying on decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George (supra). IN the case of D. Chemchiah v. Commissioner of Police, Madras. AIR 1948 Madras 288, it was held that the statute comes info effect at the first moment of the dav on which it becomes law. IN M/s Haji Lal Mohd, Biri Works v, State of U. P. AIR 1973 SC 2226, it was held that the Act came into force on the day it was published in the Official Gazette and not when it received the President's assent. The decision referred to above lav down without ambiguity thai a notification comes into effect on the date when it is published. The publication of notification is taken has effective publication and not the knowledge or availability of the said Gazette Notification. IN view of this it must be held that the grant of permit by the Regional Transport Authority was in the teeth of the notification dated 22-9-1989 which constituted afresh Regional Transport Authority, Meerut.