HARI NARAIN ROY Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case applicant moves under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of prohibition directed to the Regional Transport Authority, North Bihar, Muzaffarpur (opposite party 1) to prohibit it from proceeding with the application of Jagarnath Prasad (Opposite Party 2) for grant of a temporary permit between Paleza Ghat and Ziradei in the district of Saran. The ground on which prohibition is sought is that under Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act the Regional Transport Authority has no power to grant a temporary permit during the pendency of an application for the grant of new permit under Section 46 or Section 54 of the said Act. The facts that need to be stated for the disposal of this application are these.

(2.) There are three persons holding permanent stage carriage permits to run passenger bus service, two of them including the petitioner from Paleza Ghat to Gopalgani covering a distance of 101 miles, and the third between Paleza Ghat and Ziradei for a distance of 98 miles, with a common route of 78 miles. In 1948 opposite) party 1 decided to allow another bus service on the same routes, and by a notification no. 1016 NRT dated 26th March, 1958, published in the official Gazette of Bihar invited applications for the same. Since a new vacancy had been created, the applicant was entitled to law to apply for permanent permit for this new bus service also. Opposite party 2 was one of the applicants for the same. During the pendency of these applications the Regional Transport Authority, North Bihar (opposite party 1) by its order dated 16th March, 1958, granted a temporary permit to opposite party 2 to run bus service between Paleza Ghat and Ziradei for a period of four months, from 20th March to 20th July, 1958. The applicant filed an application under Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act to the State Transport Authority to revise the said order of opposite party 1 on the ground of illegality and want of jurisdiction. Unfortunately, For the applicant, the said Transport Authority took no action, and although the period of four months for which the temporary permit was valid has expired, the application still awaits its decision. In the meantime, opposite party 2 made another application for extension of the period of the first temporary permit. The petitioner filed objection, but heedless of his objection opposite party 1 by its order dated 16th/l7th July, 1958, extended the period of the temporary permit by two months with effect from 21st July, 1958. Thereupon, the applicant moved this court by an application under Article 226 for a writ of certiorari to call up and quash the said order, but since the State Transport Authority had not been moved for revision of the said order under Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act, this application was subsequently withdrawn. On 1st August, 1958, the applicant filed an application before the State Transport Authority under Section 64 of the Act. The latter did not move expeditiously in this matter, and it is alleged that before the disposal of his revisional application, the Regional Transport Authority (opposite party 1) has again entertained another application of opposite party 2 made in the second week of September, 1958, for issue of a temporary permit in continuation of the earlier temporary permit which is due to expire on 20th September, 1958. The petitioner prays that grant of temporary permit is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction, having regard to the provisions of Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and accordingly opposite party 1 should be restrained by an appropriate order from proceeding with the application of opposite party 2 for grant of temporary permit.

(3.) The applicant also sought a writ of certiorari to quash the order of opposite party 1 dated 16th/ 17th July, 1958, Since however, the order has spent its force, and the period of temporary permit has already expired, learned counsel for the applicant did not, and 1 think rightly, press for a writ of certiorari.