MADHYA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE AUTHORITY MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, hereinafter referred to as the Corporation, by this petition under Article 226 of the equivalent Citation: constitution calls into question the order of the Transport Appellate Authority dated 24th January 1972 passed in Appeal No. 640 of 1969 and consequent renewal of the permit of respondent No. 3 M/s Bundelkhand Motor Transport Company, hereinafter referred to as the Company.

(2.) THE facts are that the Company held a permit for Chhatarpur-Jetpur via kishangarh route which expired on 30th May 1965. Before the expiry of the permit the Company made an application for renewal of the permit under Section 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939 ). One Jogendra Singh objected to the grant of renewal to the Company. The Corporation also objected to the renewal and in addition made an application for grant of a permit to itself. The Regional Transport authority. Rewa, who considered the application for renewal of the Company, passed an order granting the renewal on 5th November 1965. An appeal was filed against this order by the Corporation alone and no appeal was filed by Jogendra singh. Jogendra Singh was not even impleaded as a party in the appeal of the corporation, The appeal filed by the Corporation was allowed by the Transport appellate Authority on 25th January 1967 and the case was remanded to the regional Transport Authority, Rewa. By its order dated 13th September 1969 the regional Transport Authority. Rewa, rejected the application for renewal of the company and granted a permit to the Corporation. The Company preferred an appeal against this order, being Appeal No. 640 of 1969, which was decided by the appellate Authority on 24th January 1972. By this order passed in appeal the application for renewal of the permit of the Company was allowed and the application of the Corporation for grant of a permit was dismissed. In pursuance of the order of the Appellate Authority, the Regional Transport Authority renewed the permit of the Company from 11th February 1972 to 10th February 1975. Thereafter the present petition was filed by the Corporation challenging the order of the Appellate Authority granting renewal.

(3.) THE first point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the appeal filed by the Company against the order of the Regional Transport Authority, rewa, dated 18th September 1969, Jogendra Singh was not impleaded as a Party and no notice was issued to him of the appeal by the Appellate Authority. It is argued that Jogendra Singh was a necessary party and without noticing him the appeal could not be heard and therefore the impugned order passed in appeal was invalid and void. Reliance for this argument is placed on Rule 73 (b) which requires that the Appellate Authority should issue notice of appeal to the appellant, the original authority and any other person interested in the appeal. In our opinion, there is no substance in this contention. It is true that Jogendra Singh had initially objected to the application for renewal made by the Company, but after the renewal was granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa, on 5th november 1965 he did not prefer any appeal. The Corporation alone went up in appeal against that order and in that appeal also Jogendra Singh was not impleaded as a party and no notice of appeal was given to him. The remand order was passed in an appeal preferred by the Corporation in which Jogendra Singh was not a party and the benefit of that order could not be taken by him. Consequently, equivalent Citation: he could not participate and indeed, he did not participate in the proceedings after remand. In these circumstances, it is clear that Jogendra Singh was not a person interested in the result of the appeal filed by the Company against the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority after remand and the Appellate authority was right in not issuing any notice to him. Even otherwise, we feel that the Corporation is not entitled to ventilate the grievance that Jogendra Singh was not noticed when he himself has not come forward to challenge the order of the appellate Authority on that ground. In this writ petition also he has not been joined as a party. For these reasons, we reject the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.