LAWS(ORI)-1994-5-15

JUBLA KUMAR JOTHI Vs. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

Decided On May 10, 1994
JUBLA KUMAR JOTHI Appellant
V/S
STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of law involved in both these writ applications being common they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. An interesting question of law arises with regard to the procedure for hearing applications for grant of temporary permits on a specified route, namely, whether all the applications made for grant of temporary permits in a route are required to be considered together and the permit granting authority commits any error in not disposing them of together and secondly, whether in the present two cases, on the facts and circumstances, propriety demanded consideration of all the applications, for grant of temporary permits together.

(2.) The petitioner in OJC No. 2726/ 94 was an applicant for grant of a temporary permit on an inter-State route Narasinghpur to Calcutta and he filed his application for grant of such permit before the S.T.A., Orissa on 3012-93. Though an application for grant of temporary permit is required to be disposed of within 4 days under law, no action was taken on the petitioner's application and whenever he approached the authority he was told that he will be intimated the date on which his application will be considered. The petitioner received a notice on 4-3-94 signed by the under Secretary. S.T.A., Orissa whereunder he was directed to appear before the Chairman, S.T.A., opposite party No. 2 on 15-3-94 at I1 a.m. for consideration of his application for temporary permit on the aforesaid inter-State route. The petitioner appeared before the Chairman, S.T.A. on 15-3-1994 through his Advocate but his application was not taken up for hearing and on the other hand, opposite party No. 2 took up the applications of some other applicants for consideration regarding the grant of temporary permit on the self-same inter-State route. The petitioner was informed on 15-3-1994 that his application for grant of temporary permit on the inter-State route Narasinghpur to Calcutta would be taken up on 2-4-1994, as there was no time to hear all the applications on that date. The petitioner was then served with a registered notice dated 18-3-1994 whereunder he was informed that the hearing of his application has been adjourned to 2-4-1994 at 11 a.m. before the Chairman, S.T.A. and this notice was received by the petitioner on 23-3-1994. The petitioner, however, learnt that the Chairman, S.T.A. has decided to grant temporary permit in favour of opposite parties 3 and 4 for the aforesaid inter-State route on 15-3-1994 and, therefore, the petitioner approached this Court in O.J.C. No. 2471 / 94. That writ application was disposed of by this court at the admission stage whereunder this Court observed that there was no justification for the petitioner to apprehend that his application for permit would not be considered. The said order was passed after hearing the counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the department. The petitioner, however, came to know that the permit granting authority has already granted permit in favour of opposite parties 3 and 4 on the aforesaid interState route. In the meantime the hearing that was fixed to 2-4-1994 stood adjourned to 12-4-1994 and since the permit granting authority had granted two temporary permits in favour of opposite parties 3 and 4, the petitioner thought that the hearing of his application on 12-4-1994 is a futile exercise. He, therefore, filed the present writ application on 8-4-1994. The petitioner avers in the writ application that under law, all applications pending at a given point of time for grant of permits are required to be considered together and in the context non-consideration of the petitioner's application on 15-3-1994 and granting permits to opposite parties 3 and 4 on that date vitiates the decision particularly when the petitioner was served with a notice by the permit granting authority to appear before him on 15-3-1994 at 11 a.m.

(3.) The Under-Secretary to the State Transport Authority has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2. The stand taken by them is that opposite parties 3 and 4 had submitted an application for grant of temporary permit of inter-State route of Narasinghpur to Calcutta in October, 1983 and permits had been granted to them on 21-2-1993. But those permits had not been issued on account of an interim order issued by the High Court in O.J.C. No. 134/ 89. When that writ application was disposed of finally on 27-12-1993, it was observed by the court that grant of temporary permit must be in accordance with law. Thereafter opposite party No. 2 by order dated 31-12-1993 confirmed the temporary permit granted in favour of opposite parties 3 and 4 and fixed the case to 10-1-94 for hearing in the matter of fixation of timing but before issuance of the permits, two other writ applications were filed which were registered as O.J.C. Nos. 146 and 286 of 1994. As well as opppsite parteies 5 and 6 in OJC No. 286/94 and opposite parties 6 and 7 in fixing a date of hearing in the matter of grant of temporary permit and opposite pary No. 2 was directed to appose of the application for temporary permit by passing a reasoned order. This Court had also observed that one Ramesh Chandra Mallik has filed M. V. Revision No. 1/84, and the revision case should be taken and opposite party No. 4 was called upon to dispose of the matter within two months from the date of the order and it was further directed that while disposing of the application for grant of temporary permits, the petitioners in two writ applications, namely, OJC No. 146/ 94 and 286/ 94 as well as opposite parties 6 and 7 in OJC No. 146/94 and opposite parties 5 and 6 in OJC No. 286/94 who were grantee of temporary permits should be heard along with said Ramesh Chandra Mallik and the matter would be disposed of by a reasoned order. Since the present petitioner was neither one of the opposite parties to the aforesaid two writ applications nor he had filed any revision against the order granting temporary permit, he was not required to be heard along with others in accordance with the direction of this court in O.J.C. Nos. 146 and 286 of 1994. It was further averred that when the matter relating to grant of temporary permit was fixed to 15-3-1994 for fresh hearing in accordance with the directions of this court in OJC Nos. 146 and 286 of 1994, coincidentally the petitioner was also noticed who had filed an application on 30-12-1993 for the self-same .route of Narasinghpur to Calcutta. It is also the further stand that since it is not a requirement of law that all applications for grant of temporary permits on a specified route should be heard together and since in accordance with the judgment of this Court in OJC Nos. 146/94 and 286/ 94 the petitioner was not required to be heard along with others to implement the decision of this Court in the aforesaid two writ applications, the others were heard and decision was taken and thereafter the petitioner's case was considered indepedently and in the meantime decision has been taken not to grant temporary permits to the petitioner. It has also been contended that in view of an alternative remedy available to the petitioner under Section 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act to file a revision, this Court should not invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction.