ABDUL MAJID Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are 62 applications under Article 226 of the! Constitution, the first thirtyone by various persons holding permits to ply motor vehicles on public road, hereinafter referred to as the petitioners, for a writ in the nature of certiorari to call up and quash the order of the State Transport Appellate Authority, Bihar (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Authority) dated 12-12-1959, and the remaining thirtyone by the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) for a similar writ to quash the order of East Bihar Regional Transport Authority Bhagalpur (hereinafter referred to as the Regional Authority) dated 26-9-1959. The Regional Authority and the Appellate Authority are opposite parties in all these applications. The Corporation is one of the opposite parties in the first thirtyone applications, and the different petitioners in those applications are opposite parties in the last thirtyone cases. Both the petitioners and the Corporation challenge the legality of the different orders passed either by the Regional Authority or by the Appellate Authority in the same proceedings, and in fact the grounds made out by the Corporation in its petitions constitute its defende in the applications presented by the petitioners and vice versa. Thus, common questions of law arise in all these applications, and, therefore, they were heard analogously and will be disposed of by one judgment.

(2.) The facts which are relevant for the disposal of these applications may be briefly stated as follows. The petitioners hold stage carriage permits for plying motor vehicles on different routes within the jurisdiction of the Regional Authority. Before the dates of the expiry of the permits the petitioners made applications for their renewal in accordance with the provisions of Section 58(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On the receipt of the said applications for renewal, the Regional Authority published the same in the Bihar Gazette, inviting objections, as provided in Section 57 of the Act. The Rajya Transport, Bihar filed objections to the renewal of their permits on the ground that it was likely to operate a stage carriage service on the routes in question in the near future and a scheme was to be published very soon under Section 68C of the Act. In the meantime, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (LXIV of 1950), the State Government by notification dated 20-4-1959, established for the State of Bihar a Road Transport Corporation, called the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, with effect from 1-5-1959. The said Corporation was empowerd to exercise all the powers and perform all the functions which were being exercised and performed by the Rajya Transport. Under Section 68C of the Act the scheme was prepared and was duly published in the Bihar Gazette on 3-6-1959, and was approved on 4-11-1959, after due compliance with the provisions of the Act. Alt these applications for renewal came up far hearing before the Regional Authority on 22-8-1959. Section 44 of the Act provides for the constitution ot a State Transport Authority and Regional Transport Authorities, and Sub-section (2) of this section provides that

(3.) The main ground on which the Appellate Authority set aside the orders of renewal of the permits was that the Regional Authority which passed the final order on 26th September, 1959, was not validly constituted, inasmuch as the acting Chairman, Sri B. Prasad, had no judicial experience and was, therefore, not competent to act as Chairman. It is well to remember that the Regional Authority which heard the applications for renewal on 22nd August, 1959 was presided over by the Chairman, Sri R. Prasad, I.A.S., Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, whereas the Regional Authority on 26th September, 1959, was presided over by Sri B. Prasad, Superintending Engineer, Bhagalpur, The Appellate Authority held that he had no judicial experience and was, therefore, not competent to act as Chairman. Sub-section (2) of section 44 of the Act which provides for the constitution of the Regional Authority, omitting the portions not relevant, reads as follows:--