SHIBA PRASAD SAHOO Vs. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE are two Inter-State stage carriage routes (1) Sambalpur to Ranchi, and (2) Rourkela to Ranchi, on which the State Transport Service had been operating their buses. The petitioner came to know that the State Transport Service was about to withdraw from the said routes and therefore, made two separate applications to the State Transport Authority, opposite party before us, for grant of stage carriage permits to him on the said two routes. These applications were received in the office of the Secretary, State Transport Authority, on 17-3-69. On 22-3-69, the State Transport Authority decided to fill up the routes by invitation of applications and on 26-4-69, advertisements in terms of Section 57 of the Motor vehicles Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) were published inviting applications from intending operators on or before 15-5-69. After the applications were received, they were duly notified on 27-5-69, under Section 57 (3) of the Act fixing 30-6-69 as the last date for receipt of objections. The petitioner found that his applications referred to above had not been notified and therefore, made a request to the Secretary of the State Transport Authority to notify his applications. The petitioner was informed by the Secretary on 15-7-69 to the effect that he had already been informed earlier that he should apply afresh after the routes were advertised and as he had not applied as directed, he could not claim his applications to be notified.

(2.) THE petitioner has thereupon come before us in this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the action of the opposite party in refusing to notify his applications, and wants us to issue a writ to quash the notifications of the other applications under Section 57 (3) of the Act and for a direction that his applications may be notified and disposed of in accordance with law.

(3.) THE opposite party in its counter affidavit has stated that on 17-3-69 the two applications from the petitioner had been received, but by then there was no vacancy on the routes and as such the Secretary of the State Transport Authority, in exercise of powers under Rule 54 of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules, declined to accept the said applications and the petitioner was duly informed a few days thereafter that he should apply afresh when applications are invited, and his applications received on 17-3-69 were filed in the office of the State Transport authority. The petitioner did not apply in terms of the directions and therefore there were no applications pending consideration before the State Transport authority, which could be asked to be notified under Section 57 (3) of the Act. It is also contended that the applications of the petitioner did not come within the purview of Section 57 (2) of the Act, and as such are not entitled to any consideration.