CHAMAN MOTOR SERVICES Vs. APPELLATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution, is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority constituted under the Central Provinces and Berar Motor vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the Act), cancelling a stage carriage permit that was granted to the petitioner on route Raipur to Sambalpur via Kanker.

(2.) ON the application dated 9-2-1953, the petitioner, Chaman Motor Service, raipur, was granted a stage carriage permit on route Raipur to Sambalpur via kanker, by the Regional Transport Authority by its order dated 3-7-1953. Against that order respondent No. 3, Kanker Transport Company, Raipur preferred appeals nos. 165 and 166 of 1953 to the State Transport Appellate Authority, respondent no. 1, Respondent No. 5, the New Motor Transport Co. Durg also filed appeals nos. 196 and 197 of 1953 as against that order. Similarly respondent No. 6, the raipur Transport Company Limited Raipur also preferred appeal No. 216 of 1953. In the meantime Respondent No. 3, Kanker Transport Company, Raipur was succeeded by respondent No. 4, Danteshwari Transport Company, Raipur. The appellate Authority heard appeals Nos. 165 of 1953 and 197 of 1953 together on 29-12-1953. Appeal No. 165/53 was dismissed on the ground that respondent No. 3 had no locus standi as it had merged with respondent No. 4. On the same date, appeal No. 166/1953 was held to have abated in consequence of the order in appeal No. 165/53. Appeal No. 197/53 was allowed and the case was remanded to the Regional Transport Authority with a direction to reconsider the petitioner's application along with the application of respondent No. 5 for grant of permit on route Dhamtari to Narayanpur via Kanker and Sambalpur. In the meantime the permit that was granted to the petitioner was suspended. Appeal No. 216 of 1953, preferred by respondent No. 6, was ordered to be kept pending till the decision of the Regional Transport Authority.

(3.) THE Regional Transport Authority took up the matter on 1-2-1954 and again allowed the application of the petitioner and rejected that of respondent No. 5. As against this decision, respondent No. 5 alone preferred appeal No. 54/1954. In the meantime respondent No. 3 filed M. P. No. 60 of 1954 in this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, against the appellate Order in appeals Nos. 165 and 166 of 1953. The M. P. Miscellaneous petition was allowed on 17-5-1954 and both the appeals were directed to be heard by the Appellate Authority.