SARDAR HASAN SIDDIQUI Vs. S T A TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have invoked Art. 226 of the Constitution and have challenged the legality of an order dated 18th May 1982, passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U. P., Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Tribunal) setting aside a resolution dated 16th October. 1981, passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Moradabad (hereinafter referred to as the Transport Authority) including a portion of an independent route in their existing permits for stage carriages and remanding the matter for reconsideration by a duly constituted authority.

(2.) The petitioners were existing permit-holders of one of the three routes which were Nagma-Kalagarh-via-Afzalgarh (hereinafter referred to as route No.(1); Nagina-Jaspur-via-Afzalgarh (hereinafter referred to as route No. 2), and Kashipur-Kalagarh-via-Jaspur (hereinafter referred to as route No. 3). Petitioners Nos. 1 to 8 (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners 1st set) the existing permit-holders of route No. 1 made applications under S. 57(8) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the inclusion of routes Nos. 2 and 3 in their existing permits. The petitioners Nos. 9 to 20 (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners IInd set) the existing permit-holders of route No. 3 made similar applications for the inclusion of routes Nos 1 and 2 in their existing permits and the existing permit-holders of route No.2 made similar application for the inclusion of routes Nos 1 and 3 in their respective permits. In addition, all of them desired inclusion of an independent route from Bhootpuri to Kashipur via Swawala and Jaspur. These applications were rejected by the Transport Authority by its resolution dated 29th August, 1978, the unsuccessful applicants preferred separate revision applications and these were disposed of by the Appellate Tribunal in two sets by orders dated 28th March, 1979 and 20th July, 1979. The Appellate Tribunal maintained the resolution of the Transport Authority except with regard to the inclusion of the new route aforementioned. However, even with respect to the new route as claimed by the petitioners, the Appellate Tribunal gave a direction that the applications of the petitioners should be considered only for the portion between Bhootpuri to Jaspur. With this direction the matter was remanded to the Transport Authority. In the remanded proceedings the Transport Authority accepted the applications of the petitioners and included the portion between Bhootpuri and Jaspur in their respective permits by its resolution dated 16th October, 1981 referred to above. This resolution was challenged by the respondents Nos. 5 and 6, the existing operators of a route which overlapped a portion between Bhootpuri and Jaspur by means of three separate revision applications. The Appellate Tribunal disposed of the three revision applications by the impugned order. It is to be noted that the existing permit-holders of route No. 2 have not come up to this Court and it appears that they have acquiesced into the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal.

(3.) Three reasons have been assigned by the Appellate Tribunal for interfering with the resolution of the Transport Authority They are : (1) The proceedings of 16th October, 1981, of the Transport Authority were not valid as one Sri Janardan Prasad, the Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly, one of the 4 members of the Transport Authority, participated in the same without any authority of law; (2) The Transport Authority acted without jurisdiction in including a portion of the route between Bhootpuri and Jaspur in the permits of the petitioners and others without their making any application for the modification of the route, as originally prayed for namely, Bhootpuri to Kashipur-via-Jaspur, and (3) The publication of the applications of the petitioners IInd set for the inclusion of the new route was defective in so far as the notification did not permit the filing of any objection as against the said applications. These applications were published by means of a corrigendum and the corrigendum itself was published long after the period of 15 days from the date of the publication of the first notification. The publications of the applications of the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 were defective on similar grounds. In view of its finding on the first point, the Appellate Tribunal has given a direction that the petitioners may make formal applications for the amendment of the route and also the applications of petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 and the petitioners IInd set may be republished.