JAMINI MOHAN DAS Vs. NIRANJAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner ran neck to neck and lost it by a photo-finish, to get a periodic transport permit. The findings of the appellate authority slightly titled in favour of Respondent No. 1. It shows that the petitioner is also not an unfit person to get a permit. However, the quota of permits being fixed the petitioner cannot be accommodated although it cannot be said that he is not a deserving person to get a permit in future. In short, these are the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner to which I entirely agree.

(2.) THE main grievance of the petitioner is that for a mistake or error of judgement of the Regional Transport Authority the petitioner has suffered a great set back. He purchased vehicle worth about Rupees 1 lakh, placed it on road, but ultimately lost in the appellate tribunal.

(3.) BEFORE considering the question of grant of permits, the Regional Transport Authority should very seriously exercise their minds as to the relevant materials necessary to grant permit. They should very carefully and diligently examine and reflect the respective merits and demerits of the applicants. If these are not done and a hasty order is made by Regional Transport Authority and a person obtains a permit for the first time and on the strength thereof the purchases a valuable property worth a lakh and then fails in appeal, the person sustains a perilous and crippling shock and loss. Hence, allotment of such permits calls for utmost exercise and consideration by the Regional Transport Authorities, while granting permits to persons having no vehicle. Once a permit has been granted and the permit holder purchases a new vehicle, the appellate authority should very carefully consider this fact very minutely. Other things being near equal, allotation of his permit should not be disturbed by the Appellate Authority. The appellate Authority should not direct new permits during the pendency of an appeal. I have held in a recent decision that the appellate authority has no power to grant any permit in favour of an appellant whose application for grant of temporary permit has been rejected by the Regional Transport Authority. In my opinion, the same principle 'proprio vigore' applies in the case of periodic permit, even if his case falls under Section 134(1)(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, unless there are some compelling reasons. This is another reason why Parliament did not authorise the appellate authority to grant permit during the pendency of an appeal. If an appellant is granted a permit to run a vehicle during the pendency of an appeal and on the strength thereof he purchases a valuable vehicle worth well over a lakh and thereafter fails in appeal, it will result in perilous loss to him apart from mental shock. The valuable vehicle will remain idle without any use as without some sort of permit no transport vehicle can be profitably put on the road.