RAJPUT TRANSPORT CO Vs. NAND KISHORE PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the relevant time in the year 1970 the petitioner held a stage carriage permit for the route-Dumraon-Dehri-in the district of Shahabad (now districts Bhojpur and Rohtas). This permit which had been granted a few years back was valid up to December. 1971. The timing of running this service, which was coming from before and which was fixed at the time of the last renewal granted sometime before 1970. was 11.30 A. M. for departure from Dumraon reaching Dehri at 4.30 P. M. For the return journey the time of departure from Dehri was 5.15 P. M. reaching Dumraon by 11.30 P. M. Respondent No. 1 also at the relevant time, held a stage carriage permit on the above mentioned route. His time of departure from Dumraon was 5.30 A. M. reaching Dehri at 10.30 A. M. For back journey the time for departure from Dehri was 12.10 P.M. and that of arrival at Dumraon was 4.50 P. M. The petitioner filed an application before the South Bihar Regional Transport Authority, Patna, for the revision of the tunings of its service. But this application was rejected. On 2-5-1970 it filed another application for change of its timings which was allowed not by the Regional Transport Authority but by its Chairman by his order dated 19-5-1970 (annexure I) in purported exercise of his delegated power. According to the change allowed in the timing the time of departure of the petitioner's service from Dumraon became 5 A. M. instead of 11.30 A. M. its arrival time at Dehri became 9.30 A. M. instead of 4.30 P. M. and on the return journey the departure time from Dehri was changed to 11 A. M. instead of 5.15 P. M. consequently changing the arrival time at Dumraon to 3.30 P. M. instead of 11.30 P. M. This was done in spite of the objection of respondent No. 1 who was vitally affected, according to him. by the change of timing allowed to the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 filed a revision application under Section 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the Act) before the State Transport Authority on 25-5-1970. It is not necessary for me to state the history of stay orders passed by the Chairman of the State Transport Authority. Suffice it to say that by the final order passed by the Chairman of the State Transport Authority on 14-9-1970 (annexure 2) he has not only vacated the order of stay but rejected the revision application also for want of jurisdiction. Respondent No. 1 thereafter-filed a second revision application before the State Government under Section 64-A introduced in the Act by the Motor Vehicles (Bihar Amendment) Act. 1949 (Bihar Act 27 of 1950). Both the sections were operating in the field and their different scopes were reconciled by a decision of the Supreme Court in Tansukh Rai v. Nilratan Prasad, (AIR 1966 SC 1780). Hereafter in this judgment I shall refer to Section 64-A of the Act as Central Section 64-A and Section 64-A introduced by the Bihar Amendment as Bihar Sec- tion 64-A. By order dated 11-11-1970 (annexure 3) the Transport Minister of the Government of Bihar has allowed the revision application and set aside the orders of the Chairman of the State Transport Authority as also of the Chairman of the South Bihar Regional Transport Authority contained in annexures 2 and 1 respectively. The learned Minister has sent back the case to the Regional Transport Authority directing it to call for reports from the local authorities on the petition filed by the petitioner on 2-5-70 and to dispose of the said petition acording to law after hearing the objectors and considering the said reports. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said order filed this writ application on 23-11-70. It was admitted on 26-11-70-The operation of the order of the State Government contained in annexure 3 was eventually stayed by order of the Bench passed on 9-12-70. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 1.

(2.) Mr. Prabha Shanker Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged the following points- (i) That the Chairman of the Regional Transport Authority had jurisdiction to alter the timings and the view of the Transport Minister to the contrary is erroneous in law. (ii) That no revision under Bihar Section 64-A of the Act lay to the State Government unless a revision under Central Section 64-A before the State Transport Authority was competent. During the discussion of this point, learned Counsel submitted that even if the order of the Chairman of the Regional Transport Authority was revisable by the State Government under Bihar Section 64-A. the application filed by respondent no. 1 before the State Government was beyond the period of thirty days prescribed in that Section and, hence, was barred by limitation.

(3.) During the course of argument learned Counsel for the petitioner also stated that the permit granted to the petitioner had been renewed in December 1971 with the same timings which were fixed on alteration by order of the Chairman dated 19-5-1970 and since the timing fixed at the time of renewal has not been challenged by respondent no. 1. that is final. In reply Mr. Saptami Jha, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1. pointed out that this statement of fact has not been put before this Court by any supplementary affidavit; it is. therefore, not known whether the statement of fact is correct or not. Moreover, learned Counsel pointed out that the renewal must have been granted mentioning all those altered timings, because of the stay order passed by this Court in this writ application. During the operation of this stay order, the timings which attached to the permit of the petitioner were the altered ones prevalent at the time of the renewal of the permit. We do not think that it is competent or advisable for us to enter into the controversy of the timing mentioned in the renewed permit. Although the renewal is said to have been granted more than a year ago no fact was stated by filing a supplementary affidavit. And, we do not express any opinion in regard to the effect of the order of renewal mentioning the altered timings. In that regard we leave the parties to follow such course which may be available to them. But this much is certain that this case has got to be decided on its own merits. I accordingly proceed to discuss the points raised on behalf of the petitioner and combated by Mr. Jha on behalf of respondent No. 1.