BENOY KUMAR CHAKRABARTY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule has been issued on an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ against the opposite parties to show cause why the order passed by them should not be quashed. The petitioner is a resident of Lakhipur under Goalpara Subdivision in the district of Goalpara and had made an application for granting him a stage carriage permit for Lakhipur -Goalpara route. Along with the petitioner one Khairuddin had also applied for the grant of a permit on the same route. The petitioner and Khairuddin were considered suitable for the grant of the permit.

(2.) THE main point however, urged by the petitioner is that the order of the Appellate Authority is without jurisdiction. In brief the argument is that in an appeal filed by the respondent No. 4 against the order refusing to grant him a permit, the Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to cancel the permit granted to the petitioner. Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as follows :

(3.) RELIANCE has also been placed on the case of Ramnihora Thakur v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 Pat 293. The decision in this case is based entirely on its own facts. It was clearly found by the learned Judges on the materials before them that no foundation was laid before the Regional Transport Authority for opposition and it could not be said that the grant of permit had been opposed before the Regional Transport Authority. In these circumstances, it was held that in an appeal under Section 64 (a) the Appellate Authority had no power to cancel the permit. Another case relied upon is Kishanchand Narsingdas Bhatta v. Appellate Authority, Madhya Bharat, AIR 1956 Madh -B 231. In that case it was observed that 'there are limitations on the powers of the Appellate Authority and in an appeal under Section 64(a) it cannot take into account matters or objections for which no foundation was laid by making representations against the petitioner's application.