NARAYAN PANDA Vs. TILAK RAJ KAPOOR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the writ applications in which the same order has been challenged have been heard together and will be governed by this common order.

(2.) IN pursuance of a notice issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Sundargarh (opposite party No. 2), inviting applications from intending operators for the grant of a stage carriage permit for the route Dalki to Bisra via Rourkela, the Petitioner and seven other applicants including the opposite party No. 1 in O.J.C. No. 158 of 1979 and the opposite party No. 1 in O.J.C. No. 172 of 1979 made applications which were processed in accordance with the provisions made in Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The opposite party No. 2 heard all the applicants, considered their applications in the light of two principles to judge the comparative merits, viz., (i) preference to be given to unemployed Graduates arid, (ii) preference to be given to an applicant having not more than one bus and found that there was none belonging to the first category and taking note of the second category and on a consideration of the comparative merits, granted the permit in favour of the Petitioner which was issued and the Petitioner started operating the service on and from January 1, 1978. The opposite party No. 1 in O.J.C. No. 158 of 1979 preferred M.V. Appeal No. 18 of 1977 and the opposite party No. 1 in O.J.C. No. 172 of 1979 preferred M.V. Appeal No. 21 of 1977 against the same decision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (opposite party No. 3) who set aside the impugned decision on various grounds and ultimately remanded the matter to the opposite party No. 2 for re -consideration of all the applications and then decide the matter in accordance with law with a further direction that if none of the applicants was found suitable, fresh applications would be invited.

(3.) THE only question raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to direct re -consideration of applications even of those persons who had not preferred appeals against the impugned decision taken by the opposite party No. 2.