BIBHUTIBHUSAN MUKHERJEE Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution has been filed for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by Opp. party No. 3 on 24 -12 -1962 and the orders passed by Opp. party Nos. 1 and 2 on 2 -5 -1968 and 27 -9 -1968 respectively.

(2.) PETITIONER who is the owner of a motor vehicle bearing registration No. O.R.C. 1641 applied for grant of a permanent contract carriage permit for the said vehicle. At a meeting held on 24 -12 -1962, the State Transport Authority (Opp. party No. 3) by a resolution fixed the quota of permits to be issued for contract carriage of higher seating capacity for different regions. Such quota for the district of Puri which is co -extensive with the jurisdiction of opp. party No. 1 was fixed at 12. Petitioner 's application for a permanent contract carriage permit was refused on 18 -5 -1966 on the ground that there was no vacancy in view of the quota fixed by Opp. party No. 3. He has, however, granted temporary permits from time to time. His appeal which was registered as M.V. Appeal No. 6 of 1966 was dismissed by opp. party No. 2 on the same ground that there was no vacancy within the quota already fixed by opp. party No. 3. Again on 30 -10 -1967, Petitioner applied for a permanent contract carriage permit for five years which was rejected by opp. party No. 1 on 2 -5 -1968 stating that the proposal for increase of the quota had not been approved by opp. party No. 3. Against this order, Petitioner preferred an appeal, registered as M.V. Appeal No. 13 of 1968 which was dismissed by opp. party No. 2 hy his order dated 27 -9 -1968. Petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 24 -12 -1962 fixing the quota of such contract carriage of higher seating capacity for Puri at 12 on the ground that opp. party No. 3 has no right to fetter the statutory powers and discretion of opp. party No. 1 and further challenges the orders passed by opp. party No. 1 on 2 -5 -1968 and in appeal by opp. party No. 2 on 2 -7 -9 -1968 on the ground that the said orders are based on extraneous considerations and the authorities have failed to exercise the statutory jurisdiction vested in them.

(3.) IN this case, there being no controversy about the correctness of the facts alleged by the Petitioner, the merits of the points raised are to be considered in the light of the said facts. The first contention on behalf of opp. parties is that it is not open to the Petitioner to maintain one application for quashing the orders passed on 24 -12 -1962 by opp. party No. 3 as well as the orders passed by opp. party No. 1 on 2 -5 -1968 as they are different statutory authorities. In support of their contention, reliance is placed on a decision of the Madras High Court in E. Sethupathi v. The State : A.I.R. 1957 Mad. 570. In that case, the Petitioner who was the marfatdar of various devasthanams filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of different notifications issued on different dates abolishing estates of the different deities. On those facts, it was held that such a petition was not maintainable as the Petitioner was not asserting his individual right, but in each case he was asserting a right of trustee of a different devasthanam. Those considerations, however, have no application to the facts of the present case. Here the Petitioner is asserting his individual right, in as much as, he has challenged the validity of the orders passed by opp. party Nos. 1 and 2 in refusing grant of a permit to him in pursuance of a direction issued by opp. party No. 3. This is not a case where the Petitioner is asserting a right on behalf of different persons as happened in the Madras Case.