SANDHYA DEVI Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India hes been filed praying to quash Annexure 3, the order dated 10th April, 1975, passed by respondent No. 1. Another prayer that has been made in the application is to issue a direction restraining respondents Nos. 1 and 2 from interfering, in any way, with the permanent stage carriage permit granted to the petitioner for the route Atwahi to Bakhri via Chatar and Khagaria covering a distance of 29 miles.

(2.) The relevant facts for appreciation of the points raised in the case are that the East Bihar Regional Transport Authority (respondent No. 2) made advertisement inviting applications for the grant of a permanent stage carriage permit in respect of the route Atwahi to Bakhri via Chatar and Khagaria. In response to the aforesaid advertisement, four persons, including the petitioner and respondents Nos, 3 and 4 made applications in prescribed forms. All the four applications for the grant of the permanent stage carriage permit were published in the Bihar Gazette on 6th December, 1972, inviting objections to the same within 30 days from the date of the publication. No objection to any of the applications was filed. The East Bihar Regional Transport Authority held its meeting on 8th August, 1974, and considered the four applications for the grant of the aforesaid permit. After considering the respective claim of the applicants, the Regional Transport Authority granted the permit to the petitioner as, in its opinion, the claim of the petitioner was superior to the other three applicants. A copy of the decision granting the permit to the petitioner has been made Annexure 2 to this writ application. A perusal of Annexure 2 shows that the fact that the petitioner was a new-comer to the profession and had offered 1974 model bus within two months or 1971 model bus within one month influenced respondent No. 2 to grant the permit to the petitioner. In pursuance of the decision, a permanent stage carriage permit was granted to the petitioner subject to the condition that she would place papers of 1974 model bus within two months from the date of the order. Both respondents Nos. 3 and 4 being aggrieved by the order granting the permit to the petitioner filed separate appeals before respondent No. 1. The appeal of respondent No. 3 was numbered as Transport Appeal No. 100 of 1974, while that of respondent No. 4 was numbered as Transport Appeal No. 99 of 1974. The two appeals were heard together and have been disposed of by a common order (Annexure 3). By this order, respondent No. 1 dismissed Transport Appeal No. 99 of 1974 filed by respondent No. 4 but allowed Transport Appeal No. 100 of 1974 filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 and directed that the permit be granted to respondent No. 3, Jogendra Singh. The petitioner assails this order.

(3.) Before I discuss the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it will be profitable to mention some facts as mentioned in the order (Annexure 3) passed by respondent No. 1. The grounds on which Transport Appeal No. 100 of 1974 was allowed by respondent No. 1 were that respondent No. 1 was doubtful as to whether the petitioner herself was an applicant for the permit in question or the permit which was granted in her name was actually meant for her son. It may be mentioned here that the son for the first time was made a party-respondent in the appeal before respondent No. 1. The basis for the doubt entertained by respondent No. 1 was that Sandhya Devi herself did not sign or put her left hand thumb impression on the application for the grant of the permanent stage carriage permit but her son signed as Sandhya Devi for her. Another fact worth mentioning is that the East Bihar Regional Transport Authority was reconstituted by a Gazette notification on 6th August, 1974 but the order granting the permit to the petitioner was passed on 8th August, 1974.