SUSHILA CHAND Vs. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the decision taken by the State Transport Authority, Orissa, in its meeting held on 18-8-1997, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. By the impugned decision, as at Annexure-5, the application of the petitioner for stage carriage permit in the inter-State route Phulbani-Tata was rejected. Permits for the said route were granted in favour of opposite parties 3 and 4. It may be stated here that the petitioner and one Dr. Magani Sahoo were granted temporary permits in respect of the said route, against which cases were filed in this Court as well as before the Transport Appellate Tribunal. It is not necessary to go into that aspect of the matter.

(2.) Opposite parties 3 and 4, in whose favour permits were granted, have filed preliminary counter affidavit jointly. Their plea is that as alternative efficacious statutory remedy of appeal under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1986 is available to the petitioner and as the petitioner has not availed of the same, the present writ petition is not maintainable. It has also been urged that the present writ petition involves pure questions of fact and that evaluation of comparative merits and demerits cannot be reassessed or re-valued by this Court in a writ petition. It has been pleaded that the petitioner is operating his stage carriage in the Balasore-Bhubaneswar route under a temporary permit. According to these opposite parties, there is no impropriety or illegality in the decision of the State Transport Authority.

(3.) It may be stated that the petitioner in her additional affidavit has taken the plea that the S. T. A. was not properly constituted because of the participation of the Additional Commissioner of Transport (Enforcement) in the meeting of the S. T. A. held on 30-7-1997, and, therefore, the whole proceeding of the meeting has been vitiated. According to the opposite parties, this plea is erroneous as the Additional Commissioner of Transport, who was in-charge Secretary had participated as member-convenor. That apart, the petitioner having participated in the said meeting cannot take such a plea before this Court. Reference has been made to rule 2(2)(i) of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules, 1993, which defines 'Secretary'. Reference has also been made to rules 38 and 40 (6) of the said Rules.