NATIONAL TRANSPORT CO Vs. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been filed against the order of the State Transport Authority dated 1-4-1958 confirming the order of the Regional Transport Authority dated 18-6-1957.

(2.) THE petitioner and the respondent No. 3 (Public Transport Co. ,) are transport operators on the Sconi-Balaghat-Gondia road. On 24-12-1956 the petitioner applied for permission to run an express service on that route. A similar application was filed by the respondent No. 3 on 11-2-1957. The respondent No. 2 acting as the Regional Transport Authority granted a permit to the respondent No. 3 and the respondent No. 1 as the State Transport Authority rejected the petitioner's appeal.

(3.) THE only ground which has been raised against the grant of the permit is given "in para 18 of the petition wherein the petitioner says that the respondent No. 3 obtained the permit by fraud. The alleged fraud is that by mentioned in his application and represented before the Regional Transport Authority that he had two vehicles of 1957-model which was false. There is some difference between the certified copies of the application filed by the parties. The petitioner's copy has a foot-note below the application saying that two new buses had been purchased. The respondent No. 3's copy shows that two buses were ready and the registration numbers would be given alter obtaining them. We are surprised at this difference in the certified copies which indicates an undesirable state of things in the office of the Regional Transport Authority, However, the difference is not material, as on either version it appears that the respondent No. 3 had represented that they had two spare vehicles which were ready for being put on the road. The appellate authority has declined to enquire into this matter in view of the provisions of section 60 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). That section provides that the Regional Transport Authority may cancel a permit which was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. We agree with this view. The proper remedy of the petitioner is to apply for cancellation on that ground to the regional Transport Authority itself. The question would involve enquiry into facts and the authority to whom the representation was wrongly made can best enquire into such matters. In view of the express provisions, we cannot hold that the State transport Authority has refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in it.