SAMUEL PANI Vs. RAMESH CHANDRA MALLICK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Certain disquieting and disturbing features are discernible in the judgment under challenge which have compelled us to say that a statutory Tribunal like that of opposite party No. 6 if it does not apply its mind to all relevant considerations, acts on considerations which are invalid law, makes a patent error basing on misinterpretation of relevant law governing the field and records perverse finding, it is liable to be judiciously administered with a 'potent drug'.

(2.) Following the supplementary reciprocal transport agreement arrived at between the States of Orissa and Bihar as published in the Orissa Gazette notification dated 13-12-1990 of the Commerce and Transport (Transport) Department under sub-section (6) of Section 88 of the. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), a new route Berhampur-Tata Via Jamsola has come into existence on the road map of the Eastern region of the country. As per the agreement, Orissa would operate two vehicles on one permit to perform one single trip daily covering a total distance of 697 K.Ms on the road. Then ensued tussle for getting permanent permit in respect of the aforesaid agreed inter State route amongst the eight transport operators who made separate fifteen applications to the State Transport Authority, Orissa (hereinafter called as 'the S.T.A.'). The petitioner made three separate applications whereas the opposite party No. 1 made two separate applications for the purpose. The S.T.A. in its meeting held on 14-3-1991 took up the matter and having found four of the applicants absent rejected their applications and heard the remaining four applicants who were the petitioner, opposite party No. 1, one Prakash Chandra Sethi and Niranjan Sahoo. The petitioner and his father meanwhile filed two writ petitions vide O.J.C. Nos. 850 and 851 of 1991 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in this Court alleging inaction on the part of the S.T.A. in not disposing of the applications for grant of permit in their favour. This Court passed interim order restraining the S.T.A. from taking final decision in the matter till the disposal of the said writ petitions. In view of such interim order, the S.T.A. did not pronounce its decision on its deliberations held on 14-3-1991. After final disposal of the aforesaid O.J.C. Nos. 850 and 851 of 1991, the S.T.A. in its subsequent meeting held on 10-12-1991 took up the matter of opposite party No. 1, Prakash Chandra Sethi and Niranjan Sahoo and after considering rejected the application of opposite party No. 1 and by splitting the permit into two, granted one to the petitioner and the other to Prakash Chandra Sethi.

(3.) In view of the undisputed position that the reciprocal agreement envisaged one permanent permit which is not available to be split up, the petitioner being aggrieved by the splitting up of the permit into two and granting one to Prakash Chandra Sethi, filed M.V. Appeal No. 5 of 1992 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Orissa, Cuttack opposite party No. 6 ('Tribunal' in brief). Prakash Chandra Sethi similarly being aggrieved by the splitting up of the permit and granting one to the petitioner filed M.V. Appeal No. 134 of 1991. Against the rejection of his application, opposite party No. 1 filed M.V. Appeal No. 11 of 1992. Niranjan Sahoo being aggrieved by the rejection of his application filed M.V. Appeal No. 8 of 1992. The Tribunal heard all the four appeals analogously and by the impugned common judgment dated 8-1-1993 at Annexure-8 set aside the decision of the S.T.A. holding that "it was not based upon proper appreciation of facts, materials and the legal position" and by allowing the appeal of opposite party No. 1 directed to grant him permanent permit to perform two trips daily with two vehicles. The petitioner challenges this decision of the Tribunal in this writ application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.