MAGAN DEVI Vs. STATE TRANSPORT TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by Smt. Magan Devi against a judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing her petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by which she had challenged an order of the State Transport Authority (Tribunal), Uttar Pradesh.

(2.) The appellant was one of the applicants for a permit tor running a stage carriage on Moradabad -- Kashipur route. She presented an application accompanied by answers to a questionnaire that had been issued by the Regional Transport Authority and an affidavit in support of the answers to the questionnaire. The Regional Transport Authority sanctioned a permit in favour of the appellant. One other applicant was Kali Charan Singh, respondent No. 3 in this special appeal. His application for grant of a permit was rejected. Kali Charan Singh, therefore, appealed to the State Transport Authority (Tribunal). The Tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Regional Transport Aulhority granting the permit to the appellant and instead, directed that the permit be issued in favour of Kali Charan Singh. That order was challenged by the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before I the learned Single Judge. It is against the order of dismissal of that petition that the appellant has come up before us in this special appeal.

(3.) It appears that the State Transport Authority (Tribunal) had given two reasons for setting aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority granting a permit to the appellant Learn ed counsel appearing for the appellant has challeng ed both the reasons. One reason given by the State Transport Authority (Tribunal) was that the appellant had no experience in the line and that the Tribunal was further of the view that she being a lady it was difficult for her to supervise the operation of the vehicle. This reason recorded by the Tribunal is based on questions of fact Found by the Tribunal and is not open to scrutiny by this court in its writ jurisdiction. It was, however, urged by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal had committed error in recording these findings because there was no evidence before the Tribunal in that respect, fn support of this plea the appellant swore an affidavit. Kali Charan Singh has sworn a counter-affidavit stating that there was material before the Tribunal on both the points on which the Tribunal recorded the finding. According to Kali Charan Singh, it was brought to the notice of the Tribunal that though he appellant had received her permit in question about three or four years before the appeal was heard by the Tribunal, the permit was being misused. It was asserted in the affidavit that she was living at Bijnor and had nothing whatsoever to do with the permit. It was also stated in an earlier paragraph that she had severed all her interests in the permit and that the stage carriage was being plied by S. Autar Singh to whom the permit had been given by her. In view of this assertion in the counter-affidavit it is not possible to hold that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that she had no experience in the line was not based on evidence. Similarly, the counter-affidavit shows that facts were brought to the notice of the Tribunal on the basis of which the Tribunal could record the finding that she being a lady it was difficult fof her to supervise the operation of the vehicle. The counter-affidavit shows that the Tribunal's attention was drawn to the fact that she was an old lady, 60 years of age. The affidavit also mentions that she had been a school teacher and that she was permanently residing at Bijnor, which was not the place connected with the route for which the permit was issued. It is also sated in the counter-affidavit that the appellant's family consists of herself and a grand-daughter only. We are unable to hold that, in these circumstances, the Tribunal committed any error of law in arriving at the finding that it was difficult for her to supervise the operation of the vehicle. It is true that for recording this finding the Tribunal only mentioned the fact that she was a lady and hence it was difficult for her to supervise the operation of the vehicle; but the Tribunal was making an order in appeal, which was not subject To scrutiny in any further appeal. It appears that for this reason the Tribunal did not consider it necessary to record the material on which the Tribunal arrived at the finding. On these findings recorded by the Tribunal the order of the Tribunal setting aside the grant of the permit to the appellant was fully justified on merits. A more suitable person, in the opinion of the Tribunal. was available. The Tribunal's order shows that the Tribunal considered respondent. No. 3 Kali Charan Singh to be more suitable. The order being thus justified on the findings of fact recorded by the tribunal on merits there was no question of interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.