GOPAL SARAN Vs. RAMYASH RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this writ application holds a permanent stage carriage service permit for the route Bikramganj-Nasriganj-Dehri-Sasaram in the district of Shahabad. Respondent No. 1 had a permanent stage carriage permit for the route Arrah-Bihia-Piro-Sahar. This route from Piro to Sahar was through Sikarhatta, and the total distance, it appears, from Piro to Sahar through that route is about 24 miles. The route in the said distance became unmotorable due to some defect in some bridge in the way Thereupon respondent No. 1 applied before the South Bihar Regional Transport Authority, respondent No. 2, for grant of a temporary diversion of his service in this way that instead of taking his bus onward from Piro to Sahar through Sikarhatta, he should be permitted to take it from Piro to Bikramganj, then to Nasriganj and then to Sahar. The total distance via this route from Piro to Sahar is 42 miles. The South Bihar Regional Transport Authority, by its order dated 4-1-1971 (Annexure 1), rejected the prayer. The ground given by the Transport Authority in its order is that respondent No. 1 had his route, previously, Arrah-Bihia-Piro and he took extension up to Sahar knowing full well that the condition of the road from Piro to Sahar via Sikarhatta was not very good. Therefore, on his saying now that it is dangerous to ply bus on that road, a temporary diversion could not be granted. Respondent No. 1 went up straight to the State Government under Section 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter called the Act, as it then stood under the Bihar amendment. The Transport Minister, in exercise of the revisional powers of the State Government, has allowed the temporary diversion by imposing certain conditions, and the time limit fixed for this temporary diversion is "till the bridge is reconstructed and the road is made motorable". A copy of his order dated 27-2-71 is Annexure 2 to this writ application. The petitioner has obtained a rule from this Court to quash the said order of the Transport Minister. Cause has been shown by respondent No. 1.

(2.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the various affidavits filed in this case, the position of fact which may be stated at the outset is that Sahar is a place which is well connected by bus services from Arrah and from Basriganj also. There are several persons holding stage carriage permits for plying their buses on the said route to take passengers to Sahar from either side. In this background, I proceed to consider the points urged on behalf of the petitioner. They are the following:--

(3.) On the language of Section 64-A of the Act, as it then stood under the Bihar amendment, it may not be possible to accept the first contention. But I do not propose to decide this question finally in this case. I proceed to examine the other 3 points on the assumption that respondent No. 1 could go direct in revision to the State Government.