STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Revisional Application the petitioners have challenged, inter alia, the order dated 26th March, 1991 passed by the president, Calcutta District Forum under the Consumers Protection Act, 1986 in C. D. F. Case No. 2045 of 1991 and also the order dated 5th April, 1991, passed by the President, State Commission, under the said Act, in SC Case NO,. 255 of 1991, inter alia, on the ground of jurisdiction of both the aforesaid tribuals in passing the respective orders.

(2.) THE case as made out by the petitioners in the Re visional application inter alia, is that the opposite party no. 1 lodged a complaint before the president, Calcutta District Forum under the Consumers Protection Act, 1986 giving rise to CDF Case No. 2045 of 1991 inter alia, for the following reliefs : -

(3.) IT was also contended by the opposite party no. 1 in the said complaint that he had a long Route Conductor Licence and having come to know that the State Transport Authority Mould grant permit on the aforesaid route, submitted an application for grant of temporary permit for the said route on 17th August, 1989, but since then his said application has not been considered by the authority concerned. It appears fron the orders annexed to the Revisional applicataion, that the president, Calcutta District Forum, on 26th March, 1991 not only directed to issue show cause notices upon the writ petitioners, but at the same time also passed an interim order allowing the opposite party no. 1 to ply his bus on the aforesaid route without any interference till the grant of permit on the same route. Although the said order was in favour of the opposite party no. 1, the opposite party no. 1, however," for reasons best known to him, preferred an appeal before the president, state Commission being s. C. Case No. 256 of 1991, in which the President, State Commission on 5th April, 1991, after admitting the appeal and directing to issue notice upon the respondents therein i. e. , the writ petitioners, passed an interim order allowing the opposite party no. 1 to ply his bus on the aforesaid route without any interference till the grant of permit on the said route and the police and the other concerned authorities were also directed not to create any problem in the matter of smooth running of the bus by the opposite party no. 1 on the aforesaid route.