PANKAJ KUMAR GHOSH Vs. COMMR BURDWAN DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for an appropriate writ directing the opposite parties to rescind or withdraw an order dated 31-7-1952 passed by the Commissioner, Burdwan Division, and given effect to by the Regional transport Authority, Burdwan, cancelling the route permit granted in favour of the petitioners for plying a bus in the Burdwan. Barakar route.

(2.) The petitioners along with several other persons applied for route permits for plying buses on the Burdwan-Barakar route before the Regional Transport Authority, Burdwan, being the respondent No. 2. On 9-5-1952, the respondent No. 2 passed orders granting a route permit to the petitioners and the said order was communicated to the petitioners on or about 14-5-1952. By the said order, the petitioners were called upon to produce the bus before the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Burdwan, for inspection by 16-6-1952. Acting upon the said order, the petitioners purchased one stage carriage at a cost of about Rs. 26,550/- and put the same on the said route. By a letter dated the 6/7th August 1952, the petitioners were intimated that the Commissioner, Burdwan Division, had set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority granting a permit for one stage carriage to the petitioners after hearing an appeal preferred by one Sailesh Nath Sanyal, who had been unsuccessful in getting a permit in respect of the same route from the Regional Transport Authority, Burdwan. By this letter the petitioners were directed to stop plying the bus on the above route with immediate effect. The petitioners were not made parties to, the appeal preferred by the said Sailesh Nath Sanyal, nor were they given notice of the hearing of that appeal at any stage thereof and the order of cancellation of the permit granted to the petitioners was made by the Commissioners without hearing the petitioners and in their absence. The petitioners have challenged the validity of the orders dated 31-7-1952 and 6/7-8-1952 on various grounds set out in paragraph 7 of the petition.

(3.) Mr. K. K. Basu, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued with reference to Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, that the provisions of that section, indicated clearly that the jurisdiction of the Commissioner in deciding an appeal is confined only to the determination of the question whether the refusal to grant a permit to the appellant was justified or not, but the Commissioner has no power to order cancellation of permits granted in favour of other persons who are not parties to the appeal and without hearing such persons and in their absence,