STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY ORISSA Vs. BANAMALI DALABEHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State Transport Authority of Orissa has come before this Court for quashing of an interim order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (opp. party No. 2) during the pendency of an appeal by the opp. party No. 1 against rejection of an application for a temporary stage carriage permit to him. Under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) schemes of nationalisation have been framed and the routes Cuttack-Kakatpur and Cuttack-Nayahat overlapped the nationalised routes covered by the schemes. There are some old permit holders on some of these overlapping routes. Rule 65-C of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules) provides:

(2.) This writ application was filed on 20th of March. 1972. Learned Standing Counsel for the Transport Department pressed for stay of grant of the permit to the opposite party No. 1, but we declined to do so as in our view that would amount to allowing the application of the State Transport Authority without hearing the permit holders. In the meantime the entire appeal has been disposed of and the interim order regarding stay has therefore, either merged in the final order or has lapsed. Mr. Parija for the opp. party No. 1. therefore, raised a preliminary point about the maintainability of this application in view of the changed situation and reminded us that an academic question may not be permitted to be agitated in a proceeding of this type.

(3.) We have no doubts in our mind that the impugned order has ceased to exist and. therefore, even if we are of the view that the order was bad and deserved to be quashed, in the changed situation, it is not necessary to issue a writ to quash it as the defective order has in the circumstances lapsed. We, however, think it our duty to point out to the Appellate Tribunal that the procedure adopted by it in dealing with such matters is clearly contrary to the judicial process and the practice of the Courts. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, the maximum life that a temporary permit can have is four months. The operator (opposite party No. 1) had approached the appellate authority against rejection of his application for a temporary stage carriage permit. Whether he would be entitled to a grant of a permit or not depended upon the ultimate decision. Without hearing the permit granting authority, a mandatory direction to grant a permit could not have been given. It is quite possible that the appellate authority on hearing parties may ultimately have dismissed the appeal by upholding the order of the State Transport Authority. Until the stage of hearing came, parties were heard, all the materials were looked into and a judicial determination was available to be reached that a permit should be directed to be granted, on hearing one side, the relief that ultimately may have been given in the appeal could not have been given. That apart, the direction by the Appellate Tribunal really amounted to allowing the appeal instantaneously and gave rise to an unfortunate situation, namely, benefiting the opposite party No. 1 (appellant before the Tribunal) without deciding whether the rejection of the application for grant of a temporary permit was good or bad. Judicial practice does not countenance such a situation.