(1.) This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is for quashing Annexures 1 and 2, the order of the North Bihar Regional Transport Authority, Muzaffarpur (respondent No. 1) dated 8-2-75 and Annexure 3, the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (respondent No. 11) dated 18-5-76. The aforesaid orders have been passed under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter called the Act).
(2.) In order to appreciate the points raised some necessary facts have to be stated. The petitioner was granted stage carriage permit for the route Begusarai-Barauni via Eastern Tilrath Gumti, Barauni Block, Pipra Chowk and has been operating the same. Radha Krishna Singh (respondent No. 4) holds a similar permit for his route Sagi-Begusarai, which covers a distance of 29 miles. On 30-3-71 respondent No. 4 filed an application before respondent No. 1 for a further extension of his permit covering a distance of 10 miles more from Begusarai to Barauni, via Eastern Tilrath Gumti, Barauni Block, Pipra Chowk. The said application was published in the official gazette on 9-6-71 in order to invite objections under Section 57 (3) of the Act, and the petitioner filed objection to the aforesaid extension on 7-7-71. Respondents 5 to 10, holders of stage carriage permits for various routes indicated below also filed applications for extension of their permits which was also published and the petitioner did not file any objection in his case: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_164_AIR(PAT)_1979Html1.htm</FRM> Respondent No. 1 in its meeting dated 8-2-75, after considering the reports of respondents 2 and 3 and in view of the State Government policy, granted temporary and provisional extensions to all those applicants for the routes prayed for. A copy of the resolution granting extension to respondent No. 4 is filed herewith marked Annexure 1 and of the permission granted to respondents 5 to 10 is filed herewith marked Annexure 2. The petitioner filed an application in revision before the State Transport Tribunal (respondent No. 11), which was numbered as T.R. 53 of 1975. A similar application was also filed by respondent No. 4, Radha Krishna Singh, which gave rise to T.R. No. 59 of 1975, in which the petitioner was also impleaded as opposite party, challenging the grant of temporary and provisional extension of permits and praying for permanent extension. Respondents 5 to 10 also prayed for permanent extension. All the applications were heard together by the Chairman, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bihar, at Muzaffarpur, who by his order dated 18-5-76 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. The applications filed by respondent No. 4 and also respondents 5 to 10 were allowed and respondent No. 1 was directed to make a permanent extension of the permits granted to him. The Tribunal has also held that the petitioner should have filed two applications whereas he has filed only one, challenging the grant of permit to respondent No. 4 only and, therefore he could not raise any objection so far as respondents 5 to 10 are concerned. The Tribunal also rejected the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that before deciding their cases for extension there should have been an order under Section 47 (3) fixing the limit of the vehicles. On merit also, the Tribunal held that on the reports of the authorities it was satisfied that the extension was justified in view of the public demand. A copy of the order of the Tribunal dated 18-5-76 has been filed along with the application marked as Annexure 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner has moved this court for quashing.
(3.) Mr. Rana Pratap Singh II appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that before granting extension to respondents 4 to 10 there should have been an order as required under Section 47 (3) of the Act, and in absence of such an order the whole proceeding was without jurisdiction. Secondly, it has been contended that though the petitioner did not file any objection against the extension of the permit so far as respondents 5 to 10 are concerned, still he was entitled to challenge the same, as the order was completely without jurisdiction. Mr. Amala Kanta Choudhary appearing on behalf of respondents 5 to 10 has contended that in cases covered by Section 57 (8), Section 47 (3) is not attracted and even if no limit has been fixed under the aforesaid section, the order cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. It has also been submitted by him that the authorities have power to attach condition under Section 48 (3), which is an independent section and not controlled by Section 47 (3). Counter-affidavit has also been filed on behalf of his clients supporting the order passed by respondent No. 1 extending their permits and also of the Tribunal directing the authority to grant permanent permits to them. A similar argument has also been advanced by Mr. Badri Narain Singh appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4. On his behalf also a counter-affidavit has been filed supporting the order of respondent No. 1 and also of the Tribunal.