DAYALAL N JOSHI Vs. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner and opposite party No. 3 are stage carriage operators. The petitioner has been operating a stage carriage on the route Bargarh to Rampur with extension to Pinka. This permit was granted by the Regional Transport authority of Sambalpur in 1960 and was duly, countersigned by the Transport authority of Bolangir. In 1967, the State Transport Service came to operate a second bus on this route, but sometime after withdrew the service. As there was need for a second bus to cater to the travelling public on this route and no other operator was forthcoming, the petitioner was allowed to operate a second bus on this route from August 1969. The Regional Transport Authority while granting the permit imposed a condition that the permit would be alive until the State transport Authority issues a permit for a second bus. The State Transport authority opposite party No. 1 in due course invited applications (from intending pliers for this route. The petitioner, opposite party No. 3 and six others applied and on 28th of October 1970, the State Transport Authority granted the permit for a second bus on this route in favour of opposite party No. 3. The petitioner carried an appeal and lost. This writ petition is directed against the said appellate order and we are asked to quash the grant of the permit and the appellate order upholding such grant.

(2.) THE petitioner's contention is that the State Transport Authority has no jurisdiction to grant the permit on the route and as such the grant is liable SB be quashed.

(3.) ON the other hand, the opposite party No. 3 contends that the State Transport authority has jurisdiction. A preliminary objection to the entertainment of the writ petition is raised on the ground that the petitioner is estopped from challenging the jurisdiction of the State Transport Authority to deal with the matter. It is stated that in August 1969, when the petitioner was permitted to ply a second bus on this route, its life was extended till the State Transport Authority filled up the vacancy for the second permit. When applications were invited by the State transport Authority, the petitioner had also applied for the grant of the permit for the second bus. He submitted to the jurisdiction of the State Transport Authority, applied for a permit and having lost has now come up to question the jurisdiction of that authority to deal with the route. As such the writ petition should be thrown out in limine.