UDAYANATH PANI Vs. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY CUTTACK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellate order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in M.V. Appeal No. 4 of 1992, annexed as Annexure 3, is the subject-matter of challenge in this writ application.

(2.) The petitioner is a stage-carriage operator and applied for the inter-State route Paradeep to Jamshedpur via Jamsola for grant of a stage-carriage permit. The State Transport Authority in its meeting dated 10-12-1991 considering the merits and demerits of the different applicants granted two permits in favour of the petitioner for the route in question. While granting the aforesaid permits, the State Transport Authority took into consideration the fact that the petitioner is operating on the route on the basis of temporary permits and there has been no complaint against him and his operation has been considered as smooth and not detrimental to the interest of the travelling public and there is no tax arrear against him. Opposite party No. 2 being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the State Transport Authority filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal which was registered as M.V. Appeal No. 4 of 1992. The Tribunal by the impugned judgement came to the conclusion that the fact that the petitioner was operating on the route on the basis of a temporary permit might be a consideration in favour of the petitioner, but could not be the sole consideration in this regard, and being of the opinion that the conduct of the petitioner seeking transfer of a permanent permit on the route Purfi to Tata in favour of his son on the ground of better management would be a matter which would weigh with deciding the operational efficiency of the petitioner and the said fact having not been brought to the notice of the State Transport Authority, held that the consideration made by the granting authority had been vitiated and accordingly remitted the matter for re-consideration of the State Transport Authority to judge the efficiency of the petitioner in view of his earlier case of transfer of a permanent permit on the route Puri and Tata in favour of his son. It is this judgement of the Appellate Tribunal which is under challenge.

(3.) Mr. Rath, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits with emphasis that the transfer of the permit in favour of the petitioner's son having been allowed by the permit granting authority in the interests of the travelling public and for proper and smooth functioning of the route Tata to Puri and the said act cannot be said to be trafficking of permit and consequently cannot be said to be a germane consideration for deciding the operational efficiency of the petitioner, therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in remitting the matter to the State Transport Authority for fresh consideration. Mr. Parija appearing for opposite party No. 2, on the other hand, submits that the fact that petitioner had transferred a permit on the route Puri to Tata in favour of his son would be vital and germane consideration for deciding the operational efficiency of the petitioner on the route in question and such a vital consideration not having been taken into account by the State Transport Authority, the Tribunal was fully justified in remitting the matter to the State Transport Authority for fresh consideration.