EXECUTIVE OFFICER Vs. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IS the result of litigation always unpredictable? The petitioner may reply to this question in affirmative.

(2.) BY order dated 3 -7 -1996 at Annexure - 4, the Chairman, State Transport Authority, Orissa, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as 'S. T. A) -opp. party No. 2 in comparison of comparative merits granted temporary permit of stage carriage to the petitioner for vahicle bearing registrati9n number OR -05 -D.5781 on the route Pattamundai -Calcutta, but in the second round of litigation, the petitioner has been deprived of the fruit of the said order and now as per the impugned order dated 3 -10 -1996 temporary permit has been granted to opp. party No. 3 for vehicle bearing registration number OR -05 -D -552S on the self -same route. This order at Annexure -10 of the S. T. A. is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

(3.) SHRI G. Rath, learned senior counsel, seriously contended that this Court in Jadumani Pradhan v. Srinibash Sahu (supra) has not at all held that although ownership or possession of stage carriage is not a condition precedent, ' it is a relevant factor in considering the merits of rival applicants. He referred to the second sub -paragraph of paragraph 5 of the judgment. Learned counsel also placed reliance on paragraph 14 of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in C. Veerappa Pillai v. Raman and Raman Ltd. : AIR 1952 SC 192.