PREMLATA DEVI Vs. NIRMALA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application, the petitioner challenges the order contained in Annexure 3 dated 10-12-1974 passed by the Chairman, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bihar, Patna (Respondent No. 2) allowing the revision application and thereby extending the route under permit of Respondent No. 1 upto Shaharghat.

(2.) In order to appreciate the points raised in support of this application the salient facts are these: Respondent No. 1 was granted a stage carriage permit for the route Sitamarhi - Sheohar -Belwaghat, a distance of 24 miles, sometimes in the year 1969. The said permit was valid for three years. It appears that within the said period, Respondent No. 1 on an application made by her, got an extension of her permit from Sitamarhi to Harhi Bazar, a distance of about 15 miles equivalent to 24 kilometres. The said order of extension is contained in annexure 1 to the writ application dated 13-6-1972. However, it appears from Annexure '1' that a claim for extension of the erout for more than 15 miles was made which was not allowed. It is not disputed that sometime after the aforesaid order, the original permit was to expire when an application for renewal of the said permit was made which was duly notified and thereafter it was renewed for another term. After the aforesaid renewal, an application was made sometime in the year 1975 (wrongly stated to paragraph 3 of the writ application as 1972) for a further extension of the route upto Shaharghat. This application, it is said, was again duly notified in the Gazette so that if any person had any objection to the said extension, he could have objected to the same. It appears that no objection was filed by any body. The prayer for extension was, however, rejected by the Chairman, North Bihar Regional Transpors Authority, Muzaffarpur (Respondent No. 3). The said order is contained in Annexure 2 dated 4, 15 and 16 March 1975. It appears from the said order that the extension claimed for was rejected on the ground that it was a claim for second extension. Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent No. 1 preferred a revision application before Respondent No. 2 which has been allowed by order, dated 10-12-1974, which is the impugned order in the present case.

(3.) As the aforesaid statements of facts are not disputed, it is not necessary to state the contents of the counter-affidavit and the rejoinder filed thereto. Mr. Rajeshwar Prasad Srivastava learned Counsel appearing in support of this application, in the first instance, contended that the order contained in Annexure 3 is without jurisdiction, as it has been passed by Respondent No. 2 against the express provision of law, namely, the proviso to clauses (xxi) of section 48(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Mr. Septami Jha learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 on the other hand, contended that the said provision has no application to the present case as there was no condition attached to the permit similar to what has been laid down in the aforesaid clause (xxi). In order to appreciate the argument, it will be necessary here to quote section 48 (3) of the Act along with clauses (i), (xxi) and the proviso Which reads thus : -