JAGATBANDHU SAHNI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution against the order of the Minister of Transport, dated the 30th August, 1966 (Annexure D), passed on a revision application under Section 64 -A of the Motor Vehicles (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1939, made under the following circumstances.

(2.) For the route Dhanbad -Barmasia via Mahuda, an advertisement was made inviting applications for one permit. Several applications were received; but, at the time of the consideration of those applications, the Chotanagpur Regional Transport Authority (C.N.R.T.A.) Ranchi, decided that two permits should be granted. The route was an old one on which a large number of vehicles were plying. Having thus decided to grant two permits, the C.N.R.T.A., ultimately, decided to grant the permits to (1) the petitioner, Jagatbandhu Sahani, and (2) one Tara Prasad Sinha Choudhary on certain conditions. On appeal, the Appellate Board, by its order dated the 30th September, 1961 (Annexure B), held, following some Patna decisions, that the number of permits should be fixed before issuing the advertisement, and that, if the number is increased at the time of consideration, it will be open to attack on the ground that the R.T.A. wanted to accommodate more persons. The Board further observed that it was not satisfied with the reasons given for increasing the number of permits from one to two. Hence, the Board set aside the order of the C.N.R.T.A. granting permits to the petitioner and to Tara Prasad Sinha Choudhary, and directed that "the R. T. A. should advertise these two vacancies afresh and invite applications from all persons and consider them on merits".

(3.) When the Minister heard the revision application under Section 64 -A, he did not decide the question whether, when only one permit was advertised, the R.T.A. was justified in granting two permits. Without answering this question, (which is the most important question, on the basis of which the Appellate Board set aside the order of the R.T.A.), the learned Minister considered whether an experienced operator or a new comer should be preferred, and, ultimately, decided that one of the permits should be granted to Shri Ram Sundar Sah (opposite party No. 4). But his order is quite unsatisfactory. There is no direction as to what is to be done with regard to the other permit, which, according to the R.T.A., was considered to be necessary after the advertisement was made. There is no express order either quashing or modifying the order passed by the Appellate Board.