KEDARNATH KAR Vs. SACHIDANANDA PATNAIK AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner Kedarnath Kar holds a permanent contract carriage permit granted by the R.T.A., Puri, in respect of his vehicle O.R.C. 1141. The sitting capacity of that vehicle is 8. On 12th December, 1969 the Petitioner applied to R.T.A., Puri, under Section 59(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act IV of 1939) (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) and Rule 70(b)(ii) of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules) for permission to replace his vehicle ORC 1141 by ORC 2968. The sitting capacity of ORC 2968 is 26. On 14th of March, 1970 the Chairman R.T.A. Puri, allowed this application. On 25th of April, 1970 Sachidananda Patnaik (Opposite party No. 1) filed an objection against the order of the Chairman. The objection was overruled on 27th of April, 1970 and the R.T.A approved the action of the Chairman. Opposite party No. 1 filed M.V. Revision Case No. 5 of 1970 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (Opposite party No. 2) against the order of the R.T.A., Puri, granting replacement. Opposite party No. 2 allowed the revision by his order dated 31 -4 -1971 (Annexure -A) and set aside the order of the R.T.A., Puri, allowing the replacement. This writ application has been flied under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing Annexure -4 by issue of a writ of certiorari.

(2.) OPPOSITE party No. 2 has referred to a large number of irrelevant sections on which Mr. Parija also placed reliance. The sole question for determination in this writ application is whether the order for replacement passed by the R.T.A., Puri, is in accordance with Section 59(2) of the Act and Rule 70(b)(ii) second proviso, of the Rules.

(3.) RULE 70(b)(ii) second proviso of the rules runs thus: