MAHABIR MOTOR CO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for the issue of a writ in respect of an order passed by the State Transport Authority in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, on 12-12-1953 by which the State Transport Authority allowed an appeal against an order of the East Bihar Ragional Transport Authority, dated 23-4-1952, by which the said Regional Transport Authority renewed the permit of the present petitioner in respect of a stage carriage permit for the Bhagalpur Deogher route via Jaipur and Jamadha. The petitioner also filed an application to the State Government under Section 64A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which application of the petitioner was rejected by the State Government. It is in respect of these two orders 'that the present application for the issue of a writ has been made, on the ground that the order of the State Transport Authority is without jurisdiction and the order of the State Government violates the principles of natural justice.

(2.) The facts relevant for the purpose of the present application are these. The petitioner, M/S. Mahabir Motor Company, Bhagalpur originally had a permit for one bus, namely, B. R. J. 528 for the aforesaid Bhagalpur Deoghar route. Subsequently, they had a permit for another bus, B. R. J. 86. On account of the short supply of petrol, 'only one bus actually was run by the petitioner. On 15-10-1951 the Regional Transport Authority, within whose jurisdiction the route lay, decided to advertise the renewal in respect of only one service for the route in question and to get Government Sanction for the additional service. The result was that from 15-10-1951, the petitioner had only one service on the said route. When the renewal application was advertised, one Rameshwar Prasad filed an objection to the renewal of the permit of the petitioner. On 23-4-1952, the renewal question as also the objection of Rameshwar Prasad were considered by the Regional Transport Authority, and that authority by its order dated 23-4-1952, renewed the permit of the petitioner for three years in respect of bus No. B.R.J. 528. Rameshwar Prasad then filed an appeal to the State Transport Authority under Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. This appeal was heard on 4-6-1953, by the State Transport Authority. The State Transport Authority referred to certain allegations made against the petitioner and called for a further report from the Regional Transport Authority. After a report had been received, the State Transport Authority finally heard the appeal on 12-12-1953, and by their order of that date, the State Transport Authority allowed the appeal and rescinded the order of the Regional Transport Authority renewing the permit of the present petitioner. The present petitioner then filed an application under Section 64A to the State Government, which application, I have already stated, was dismissed on 1-5-1954. Thereafter the petitioner has preferred the present application for the issue of a writ of certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, for the purpose of quashing the aforesaid two orders.

(3.) In support of the petition two points have been urged before us by Mr. Bhabananda Mukehrji, who appealed for the petitioner. The first point is that the order of the State Transport Authority in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction was itself void and without jurisdiction, because no appeal lay to the State Transport Authority. Our attention has been drawn to Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which states, inter alia that in deciding whether to grant or refuse a stage carriage permit, the Regional Transport Authority shall have regard to certain matters mentioned in Clauses (a) to (f) of Sub-section (1) of the section; Sub-section (1) further states that the Regional Transport Authority shall also take into consideration any representations made by person already providing road transport facilities along or near the proposed route or routes or by any local authority or police authority within whose jurisdiction any part of the proposed route or routes lie or by any association interested in the provision of road transport facilities. Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act lays down the procedure in applying for and granting permits. Sub-section (3) of Section 57 says, inter alia, that the application shall be notified and a date will be fixed for the hearing of presentation in connection with the application. Sub-section (5) of Section 57 lays down that the Regional Transport Authority shall dispose of the application at a public hearing at which the applicant and the person making the representation shall have an opportunity of being heard either in person or by a duly authorised representative. Our attention has also been drawn to Section 58(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act which states that a permit may be renewed on an application made and disposed of as if it were an application for a permit; therefore, the procedure for renewing a permit is the same as for granting a permit, though under the proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 58 an application for renewal is to be given preference over new applications for permits. Mr. Bhabahanda Mukherji has contended before us that Rameshwar Prasad, who objected to the renewal of the permit of the petitioner, had no locus-standi and was not entitled to make any representation or objection under Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, because he was not a person already providing road transport facilities along or near the proposed route or routes. This really is a question of fact. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Rameshwar Prasad in which Rameshwar Prasad has stated that he was providing road transport facilities along or near the route in question by means of a permit, namely, Public carrier permit No. B. R. J. 218. In view of this counter-affidavit it cannot be said that Rameshwar Prasad had no locus standi to make a representation. This point was also considered by the State Transport Authority, and the State Transport Authority took the view that under Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act any person had the right to file an objection to the granting of a permit. It is unnecessary to consider in this case whether that view of the State Transport Authority is right or wrong. On the affidavits filed before us it is clear that Rameshwar Prasad had the right to make an objection. If Rameshwar Prasad had the right to make an objection he had also the right to prefer an appeal against the order of the Regional Transport Authority. Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for appeals. Section 64 is in these terms: