SUKHDEO KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is made on behalf of the petitioner, Sukhdeo Kumar, for grant of a writ in the nature of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution for calling up and quashing the order of the Appeal Board of the State Transport Authority, dated 30-4-1958, by which the Appeal Board allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority fixing timings for various operators on the Purnea-Rupauli route.

(2.) It was submitted by learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner that the order of the Appeal Board is without jurisdiction because there was no right of appeal provided under Section 64 of the Motor Vehices Act against the order of the Regional Transport Authority fixing the timings of arrival and departure of stage carriages. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that this case is governed by the ratio decidendi of the decision of this High Court in Phulchand Ram v. State of Bihar, Misc. Judl. Case No. 163 of 1957, D/- 14-1-1959 (Pat) where an exactly similar point of law arose and in which it was held that the State Transport Authority has no jurisdiction to set aside on appeal an order of the Regional Transport Authority fixing the timings of arrival and departure of stage carriage service. Learned Counsel also referred in support of his argument to the decision of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court consisting of Rajamannar, C. J. and Venkatarama lyer, J. in Kali Mudaliar v. Vedachala Mudaliar, AIR 1952 Mad 545 and also to the decision of a Full Bench of Rajasthan High Court in Jairamdas v. Regional Transport, (S) AIR 1957 Raj 312. On behalf of opposite party No. 4 it was contended, however, by Mr. Baldeva Sahai that there has been an amendment of Section 48 of the Motor Vehicles Act by Act 100 of 1956, and as there is a change of language between the amended and un-amended section, the point requires further consideration. We do not accept this argument as right. Section 48 of the Act as it stood before the amendment made by Act 100 of 1950 was in the following terms:

(3.) There was also another point taken on behalf of the opposite party No. 4 that under the provisions of Section 64A of the Motor Vehicles Act the State Transport Authority could have made an order in revision against the order of the Regional Transport Authority. Section 64A of the Act reads as follows: