MATHURA PRASAD PRABHUDEYAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the State of Bihar, the Bihar State Transport authority, & the Chota Nagpur Regional Transport Authority (hereinafter called Regional Authority) all of whom are the respondents to this application.

(2.) The material facts are that the petitioner is a firm running a joint family business in foodgrains sugar, cement, cloth etc. For the purpose of carrying on business in the various commodities the petitioner obtained from the Regional Authority permit No. 21 (1) for a private carrier BRM 1341. The permit was granted by the Regional Authority on 18-12-1944, and the nature of the goods to be carried as specified in the permit was "transporting goods for their business". The permit appears to have been last renewed on 9-2-1948, for a period of three years and was due to expire on 18-12-1950. In the meantime the Regional Authority on 19-7-1950, required certain information from the petitioner which the latter supplied on 24-7-1950. In September 1950, the petitioner applied to the Regional Authority for renewal of the permit on deposit of the necessary fees. The authority again required certain information from the petitioner regarding his business & the income-tax paid by him, & by a letter D/- 25-9-1950, the petitioner supplied the information required. But the Regional Authority on 30-9-1950, rejected the petitioner's application for renewal of his permit without assigning any reason whatsoever.

(3.) It appears from an extract copy of the proceedings of the meeting of the Regional Authority held on the date in question that the petitioner's application for renewal of the permit was considered along with a number of other applications, and the only order passed in respect of BR1VI 1341 was "Heard. Rejected". The petitioner then on 4-10-1950 filed a petition for a copy of the order passed on his application for renewal but he failed to obtain the same; nor did the Regional Authority communicate to him writing its reasons for refusing to renew his permit. The petitioner then sent a letter on 10-10-1950 to the Authority aforesaid stating the above facts to which the latter vouchsafed a reply. In this reply it was observed that the renewal of the permit was refused because the Regional Authority did not consider the grant of the permit "essential". It further directed the petitioner to surrender his permit, both Parts A and B, for immediate cancellation. The petitioner then presented an appeal to the State Transport Authority. This appeal was eventually heard on 9-1-1951 and the State Authority rejected the appeal ob serving as follows: