BABU RAM SHARMA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in which the petitioner prays, first for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash two orders of the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut, dated respectively the 21st July and the 3rd November, 1951, and an order of the State Transport Tribunal dated 6-8-1952, and secondly, for a writ of mandamus to issue to the State Transport Authority, Lucknow, to compel it to accept the replacement of one motor vehicle by another.

(2.) The petitioner is engaged in the business of plying stage carriages and he has been doing so since the year 1930. The facts upon which the petitioner relies are set out in the affidavit which accompanies his petition; and it is of importance to observe that no counter-affidavit has been filed. He states that in September, 1949, the Provincial Transport Authority was prepared to sanction the issue to him of a temporary permit, but as the petitioner had sold the vehicle which previously he had owned and was not possessed of sufficient money to purchase a new vehicle, he approached a financier named Chatter Sen for financial assistance. On the 23rd September Chatter Sen purchased a stage carriage for the sum of Rs. 16,500/-and on the 29th October -learned counsel are agreed that the date (?) September" in paras. 9, 10 & 11 of the affidavit should be the 29th October -- he sold the vehicle to the petitioner, and as a form of security for the protection of Chatter Sen the petitioner executed on that date four documents, namely

(3.) The petitioner says that when he executed these documents on the 29th October, the documents were not dated and blanks were left to be filled in when the registration number of the vehicle and the number of the permit were known. No date has been inserted in letter to the Regional Transport Officer. The 9th November, 1949, was subsequently inserted as the date of execution of the agreement and the power of attorney and the receipt are now dated 29-11-1949. The petitioner says that these dates were inserted by Chatter Sen. The petitioner further states in para. 7 of his affidavit that similar documents had been executed by him at the request of Chatter Sen when he had acquired vehicles from the latter in 1943 and 1944 and that after he had paid the purchase price the documents were all returned to him.