LAXMINARAYAN AND SONS Vs. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State Transport Authority of Orissa (opposite party No. 1) invited applications from Transport Operators for grant of two permanent stage carriage permits for the route between Sambalpur within the State of Orissa and Ranchi within the State of Bihar. Twenty four persons applied for grant of such permits. At the meeting scheduled for consideration of those applications, ten applicants in all appeared. The Transport Authority after considering the respective claims of the parties decided to grant the permits to the respective petitioners of the present writ applications. One Retanlal Marothia, aggrieved by rejection of his application carried an appeal under Section 64 of the Motor vehicles Act to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (opposite party No. 2 ). The Appellate Authority set aside the grant of permits, held that the Transport authority had no jurisdiction to consider and grant the permit to the petitioner in O. J. C. No. 33 of 1975 and remitted the matter for reconsideration of the applications of the appellant and the other grantee by the Transport Authority. Petitioner in O. J. C. No. 33 of 1975 challenges the order of the appellate authority holding that the grant in its favour is without jurisdiction and the petitioner in the connected case challenges the remand order by contending that when the other grantee was removed from the arena of consideration, there was no justification to remand the matter as in the vacancy caused by the decision of the appellate authority, the disgruntled appellant could have been fitted in.

(2.) THE point raised by counsel for the petitioner in O. J. C. No. 33 of 1975 is that the finding of the appellate Tribunal in regard to the petitioner is not sustainable in law. Admittedly the petitioner is a registered partnership firm. The main office of the firm is at Ranchi in the State of Bihar and the firm has several branches in different places in India. Some of the partners own immovable properties at various places in the State of Orissa and one of them k. N. Jaiswal resides permanently at Cut-tack and conducts the business of the firm within the State from here. It is alleged that the partnership firm also has extensive business within the State. A partnership firm is not a legal person and the question of its residence has to be determined not by referring to its place of registration or location of the registered office, but with reference to the place of residence of its partners. In this view of the matter, it is submitted, the petitioner-firm should have been found to be residing within the jurisdiction of the State Transport Authority of Orissa and the application made to that authority was in order and the Tribunal went wrong in holding that the State transport Authority of Orissa has no jurisdiction to entertain and consider the application by the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State transport Authority supports this stand while Mr. Ranjit Mohanty appearing for opposite party No. 3 supports the order of the appellate authority.

(3.) SECTION 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'act')provides:---