MOHD INTIZAR AHMAD Vs. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner challenges the order of the State Transport Authority, Lucknow. THE order suspends his permit for a stage carriage for a period of two months.

(2.) THE petitioner operates his stage carriage on Budaun-Bilsi-Sahaswan route. On October 20, 1959, the Regional Transport Officer checked his vehicle on the route and detected several violations of the law. On October 20, 1959 he passed an order suspending forthwith the petitioner's permit and asking him to show cause why the permit should not be cancelled. THE petitioner submitted his explanation. THEreafter his case came up for consideration before the Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly. After hearing him the Regional Transport Authority passed a composite order on November 25, 1959. THE Regional Transport Authority suspended his permit for two months: in lieu of suspension ho was asked to pay a sum of Rs. 500 on or before December 10, 1959, failing which the order of suspension would come into operation. He deposited the said amount. In April, 1960 the State Transport Authority suo motu sent for the record of his case in exercise of its power under Section 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter called the Act). He was heard by the State Transport Authority. After hearing him the State Transport Authority set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority and passed an order suspending his permit for two months. It also made a direction that the amount of Rs. 500 should be refunded to him.

(3.) IT is true that an appeal lay from that part of the order of the Regional Transport Authority which suspended his permit for two months. But as already stated, the order of the Regional Transport Authority is a composite Order. IT consists of two parts: (1) IT suspended the petitioner's permit for two months; (2) in the alternative, it directs him to pay a sum of Rs. 500 in lien of suspension. While an appeal lay against the first part, no appeal lay against the second part.