AMEER HASAN Vs. THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Regional Transport Authority, Kumaun Region, Nainital (herein after referred to as the R.T.A. by its resolution dated 21 -6 -1983 had imposed model condition of 20 years for stage carriages operating within its region with the result that an operator holding stage carriage permit cannot place a vehicle under his permit which is more than 20 years' old from the date of its registration. The petitioners, who are operators of stage carriages within the Kumaun Region of the R.T.A. appear to have accepted this condition. However, another operator of the region, namely, Syed Iqrar Ali filed an appeal as well as a revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (here in after referred to as the Appellate Tribunal) against the aforesaid order of the R.T.A. The Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 1 -2 -1984 dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. The revision was also dismissed although it was held to be maintainable. After having dismissed both the appeal and the revision, the Appellate Tribunal declared the impugned order of the R.T.A. as wrong and further directed the R.T.A. to reconsider and refix less than 20 years model condition of vehicle for operation under stage carriage permit within its region. In pursuance of these directions of the Appellate Tribunal, R.T.A. has, by order dated 6 -4 -1948, refixed the model condition of 10 years. The effect of this resolution of the R.T.A. is that the petitioners cannot operate a vehicle under the stage carriage permit which is more than 10 years old. The petitioners have, accordingly filed this writ petition, challenging the direction issued by the Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 1 -2 -1984 and the order of the R.T.A. dated 6 -4 -1984, passed in pursuance thereof. At the time of admission, this Court on 26 -6 -1984 granted an interim order restraining the respondents from implementing the model condition By another order dated 11 -7 -1914 the aforesaid interim order has been directed to continue till further orders. The interim order, as such, is still operative and the impugned order of the R.T.A. dated 6 -4 -1984 could not be implemented and given effect to. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned orders on three grounds, namely (1) the Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction to issue direction to the R.T.A. after having dismissed the appeal and the revision, (ii) even suo moto revisional power could not have been exercised by the Appellate Tribunal without giving notice and opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and other operators of the region holding stage carriage permits, and (iii) the R.T.A. has passed the impugned order mechanically on account of the direction issued by the Appellate Tribunal.

(2.) IN the appeal and revision of Syed Iqrar Ali only the R.T.A. was impleaded as the respondent. As mentioned hereinabove the Appellate Tribunal has dismissed both the appeal and the revision. After dismissing the appeal and the revision, the Appellate Tribunal held the order of the R.T.A. as wrong and further directed the R.T.A. to refix the model conditions for stage carriages. This part of the appellate order cannot be sustained. The appeal and the revision having been dismissed, the Appellate Tribunal had no jurisdiction to declare the order of the R.T.A. as illegal and consequently cannot issue the directions in connection therewith. It is true that the Appellate Tribunal can exercise revisional power suo moto but before doing so it has to issue notice containing the ground on which it proposes to exercise suo moto power to these operators, who were necessary parties. Nothing of the kind was done by the Appellate Tribunal and without issuing notices it straightaway passed the impugned order. Such a direction/order without any notice to the petitioners, who are directly affected, was without any authority of law. In this connection reference may be made to the case of D.N. Roy v. State of Bihar : AIR 1971 SC 1045 wherein the Supreme Court has laid down that before an authority exercise suo moto power, it is required to give the notice to the affected parties containing the ground on which the suo moto power is proposed to be exercised. A learned Single Judge of this Court in case of the Chhangu Lal v. Deputy Director of Consolidation,, 1972 RD 43 has also laid down that exercise of suo moto revisional power without notice to the necessary parties is not sustainable in law. Full Bench of this Court in the case of Rama Kant v. Deputy Director of Consolidation : AIR 1975 All 126 has also declared that if the authority concerned wants to exercise revisional power suo moto, it has to give notice to the necessary parties irrespective of whether they were or not impleaded in the revision. In the instant case the admitted position is that the Appellate Tribunal did not give any notice to the petitioners and other affected persons and after dismissing the appeal and the revision straight away issued the direction; in pursuance whereof the R.T.A. has reduced the model condition from 20 years to 10 years This order of the Appellate Tribunal cannot be sustained.