SATYA PAL KHETRA PAL AND OTHERS Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL U.P. LUCKNOW AND OTHERS, OPPOSITE PARTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by Sarvasri Satya Pal Khetra Pal, Hari Das and Chajju Mal against the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U.P. (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut Region (hereinafter referred to as the K.T.A.), Faqir Chand Gupta and the Meerut-Mowana-Miranpur Motor Operators union, Meerut (hereinafter called as the Motor Operators) with a prayer that the order passed by the Tribunal on 26th November, 1863 be quashed and a suitable direction, order or writ, including that of mandamus, be issued commanding the K.T.A., the respondent No. 2, to forbear from giving effect to the order dated 26-11-1963 of the respondent No. 1 the Tribunal. There is also the usual prayer for the issue of any other writ, order or direction which this Court in the circumstances of case may deem fit and proper to issue.

(2.) THE dispute between the parties is in respect of permits over the Meerut-Mowana-Miranpur route (hereinafter referred to as the route). On 23rd March, 1959, the U.T.A. Increased the strength of stage carriages on the route from 11 to 15 and invited applications for the same by means of a notification in the U.P. Gazette, dated 27th June, 1959. The petitioners as also some other applied. In the continued meeting of 30th November, 1st and 2nd December 1959, the R.T.A. decided to grant three permits to some of the displaced operators. On 28th September, 1962, the main respondents. i.e., Faqir Chand Gupta and the Motor Operators filed objections to the grant of permits to the petitioners, inter alia, on the ground that the strength on the route should not be increased. On 16th October 1962 the R.T.A. Increased the strength on the route from 15 to 20 stage carriages. The meeting of the R.T.A. continued on subsequent dates and on 24th October, 1962 permits were granted to the petitioners. The respondents Faqir Chand and the Motor Operators filed an appeal before the Tribunal, inter alia, on the ground that the strength could not have been increased from 15 to 20 at the stage of proceedings under Section 48 read with Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Hereinafter referred to as the Act). The Tribunal allowed the appeal on 26th November, 1963 and directed the K.T.A. to reconsider the matter and grant only one permit on the oasis that not 20 but 15 was the strength on the route. It is against that order of the Tribunal that the present writ petition has been filed in this Court.

(3.) SRI Dhaon, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has made the following submission : That the Tribunal committed an error apparent on the face of the record in remanding the case by taking an erroneous view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Abdul Mateen v. Ram Kailash, AIR 1963 SC 64.