BHAJAN SINGH Vs. THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ cases involve identical questions of law and hence they are being disposed of by a common judgment. The points of law involved are, (i) whether the State Transport Authority, having once granted the permit, had power to review its own order, and (ii) Even if it had the power, whether it could review its order without giving a show cause notice to the petitioners. The cases involve the grant of a National Permit. The petitioner in CWJC No. 1029 of 1984 is an unemployed matriculate holding driving licence and procured the vehicle in question from the bank on loan to maintain his livelihood The State Transport Authority advertised for about 450 grant of National Public Carrier Permits and in response to the aforesaid advertisement the petitioners applied for the same, and, according to the petitioners, the procedure of Sec. 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act were followed. Thereafter the matter was considered by the State Transport Authority in the meetings held on 15/16/17/26 of September, 1983 and also on 2/3/12 of November, 1983. The petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 1029 of 1984 appeared along with the registration book of truck No. BPA 9537 of 1983 model registered in joint names of the petitioner and his younger brother A.K. Datta with also the driving licence and unemployed certificate etc. The Authority accepted the case of the petitioner and directed that at the time of issuance of the permit the petitioner was to produce the registration book in his own name only as the application was on behalf of the petitioner alone. The Authority granted the permit to the petitioner and a notice was issued by the State Transport Authority to produce the aforesaid vehicle complete with the payment of road taxes, additional tax etc.

(2.) In compliance of the aforesaid order of the Authority the petitioner produced the registration book and this time, as ordered by the Authority, the registration book showed the name of the petitioner alone and the petitioner requested for the issuance of the permit. The Authority accepted all the papers of the petitioner including taxes, insurance etc.

(3.) The trouble arose as the office put up a note in the meeting held on 20/21 January, 1984 and in view of that note the State Transport Authority refused to issue permit and cancelled the permit already granted on 26th September, 1983. Thereafter on 20/21 of January, 1984, the State Transport Authority, suo motu reviewed its earlier order (granting permit) on the ground that as the owner book on the date of the grant did not stand in the name of the petitioner alone, but in joint names of the petitioner and his younger brother, the State Transport Authority felt that it was wrong on his part to grant the permit.