AKAL TRANSPORT CO P Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE LUDHIANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge dated January 12, 1972 accepting C. W. 2970 of 1971. The appellant was one of the respondents to the said writ petition.

(2.) THE facts are that Barnala Transport Service Private Limited (respondent No. 3)held four permits on "barnala Diwana extended up to Hathur route' providing for six return trips. The route was extended up to Jagraon by the State Transport commissioner by order dated March 30, 1971, after following the procedure prescribed in Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the act ). The appellant contested the application of respondent 3 for extension of the route and having failed filed an appeal before the appellate authority (District and sessions Judge, Ludhiana ). The learned appellate authority accepted the appeal by order dated July 31, 1971 and set aside the order of the State Transport commissioner. The main argument which prevailed with the learned appellate authority was that clause (xxi) of Section 48 (3) of the Act applied to the permits and, therefore, no variation in the distance of the route could be made for more than 24 kilometers. In this case it was pleaded that the original permits were between Barnala and Diwana which were first extended up to Hathur and then upto Jagraon. The distance between Hathur and Jagraon was admittedly less than 24 kilometres but between Diwana and Jagraon. It was more than 24 Kilometres. Against the order of the appellate authority respondent 3 filed C. W. 2970 of 1971, which was accepted by the learned Single Judge on the ground that clause (xxi) of section 48 (3) did not apply and the extension in the route could be granted under section 57 (8) of the Act.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant has stressed that Section 57 (8) of the Act only prescribes the procedure but does not prescribe the authority which can vary the conditions of any permit by the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area. According to Section 57 (8), such an application is to be treated as an application for grant of new permit. It, therefore, follows that the application to vary the conditions of a permit by the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area has to be made to the same authority which is competent to grant a new permit. It is not disputed that the State Transport Commissioner was competent to grant a new permit and, therefore, was also competent to deal with the application for extension of the route. This admission is, therefore, repelled.