REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY Vs. SRI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal has been filed on behalf of the Re gional Transport Authority, Meerut Region and the State Transport Appellate (Tribunal), U. P. Lucknow against a decision of the learned single Judge of this Court dated February 8, 1971 passed in writ petition No. 625 of 1968.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case were that the respondent Sri Ram was granted a stage carriage permit by the Regional Trans port Authority, Meerut under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the Act) for plying a bus on Bulandshahr-Jahangirabad route. On the authority of this permit he was plying a vehicle No. UPP-1456. On 25-6-1966 this vehicle met with a serious accident by catching fire as a result of which several passengers died and the bus was also burnt The respondent then appli ed for replacement of the vehicle under the same permit but no orders were passed on that application. On the other hand, on July 29, 1966 a notice was issued to the respondent under Section 60 of the Act to show cause as to why his stage carriage permit should not be cancelled. The respondent sent a reply to this notice on 4-8-1966. Sub sequently the Regional Transport Authority passed an order suspending the permit of the respondent. This permit was valid upto 12-1-1967. When the term of the validity of this permit was about to expire the respondent ap plied for its renewal under Section 58. His application was, however, rejected by the Re gional Transport Authority under sub-sec tion (2) of S. 58. The ground for this rejec tion was probably that in the opinion of the Regional Transport Authority the res pondent had not taken sufficient precaution in plying his bus which led to that unfortu nate accident on 25-6-1966. Feeling aggriev ed by this order of rejection passed by the Regional Transport Authority the respondent filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate (Tribunal), U. P. Lucknow under Section 64 (1) (e). It may be mentioned that in connection with that accident the driver and the conductor of the bus had been pro secuted. Both of them were, however, acquit ted. By the time the appeal of the respond ent was heard by the Tribunal this judgment of acquittal had been passed. The respon dent requested the Tribunal to take that judg ment also into consideration before deciding the appeal. That judgment was not, however, taken on record by the Tribunal who also dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent

(3.) A preliminary point has been raised on behalf of the respondent that these authorities which are quasi-judicial autho rities and whose orders passed under Sec tions 58 (2) and 64 (1) are quasi-judicial orders, had no locus standi to file this special appeal. We are of the opinion that this pre liminary point has considerable force in it. In our opinion a judicial authority or quasi-judicial authority has no personal interest in the confirmation or reversal of its order pas sed in its judicial or quasi-judicial capacity and, as such, it is not competent for that authority to maintain a writ under Art. 226 or file an appeal against such order simply because the order passed by that authority has been reversed by a superior authority.