BRIJ BHUSAN PANDEY Vs. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Aticle 226 of the Constitution filed by one Brij Bhushan Pande against the Transport Authority, U. P. and the Regional Transport Authority in the Gorakhpur Region.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner has been plying a stage carriage since 1942 on the Ballia Bansdith-Manior Sisota route. As was the custom from the year 1940 (sic) he was given a temporary permit for three years at a time. After the decision of the Full Bench case, Moti Lal v. Government of the State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1951 All 257 (A), the petitioner also made an application for renewal of his permit. His allegation is that from the year 1942 till 5th December 1950 there has been no conviction against him. From the 5th December 1950 to the 4th December 1953 he plied his bus on the above route and he was never convicted of any offence under the Motor Vehicles Act nor any strictures were passed by any court against him and there were no adverse endorsements on the permit or on the licence. He applied for the renewal of the permit on the 12th October 1953 which was duly published in the Government gazette under Section 57. Sub-clause (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. No objections were filed against the applicant either by any of the persons operating motor vehicles within that area or by the police. But there was a list of six convictions against the petitioner which was before the Regional Transport Authority and, as it transpires, that list was given by the Superintendent of police. When that list of challans was given to the petitioner, he tried to search them out and found that those challans really were not against him at all. In spite of that fact the Regional Transport Authority by its order dated 29th December 1953 refused to renew the permit of the petitioner. There was an appeal against that order to the State Transport Authority. That appeal was dismissed on 9th April 1955. Aggrieved with that decision of the Regional Transport Authority and that of the State Transport Authority the petitioner has come to this Court with this writ petition.

(3.) It has been urged in the counter affidavit and this fact has substantially been admitted by the opposite party that really these convictions were non-existent at the time the order was passed or were, in fact, incorrect.