PHULCHAND RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The facts leading to the presentation of this application, stated briefly, are these; The East Bihar Regional Transport Authority, opposite party No. 3, advertised a permanent vacancy for a permanent bus service on the Gonda Pirpainti route and invited applications till 30-5-1953. It appears that within that period Jagannath Prasad Jaiswal, opposite party No. 4, hereinafter to be referred to as Jaiswal, and one Srikant Dube, made applications for permit for the same. Subsequently, the State Government contemplated nationalisation of bus transport and issued a circular stopping the grant of permanent permit for any route. On 18-12-1953, however the Regional Transport Authority, in order to meet public need advertised the above route for grant of a temporary permit renewable after every four months. The petitioner, Phulchand Ram, one Roshan Mistri and twelve other persons made applications for the grant of a temporary permit for the above route. Jaiswal and Srikant Dube did not make any fresh application on this occasion, but their previous applications were also considered along with the fourteen applications made for a temporary permit by the Regional Transport Authority on 30-12-1953. It appears that the application of Srikant Dube was rejected in limine as it was supposed to have been filed beyond the prescribed time. The cases of the other fifteen applicants were considered on merit and permit was granted to Roshan Mistri on that date. Jaiswal, Srikant Dube and the petitioner Phulchand Ram preferred separate appeals against the grant of permit, but the appeals preferred by Jaiswal and the petitioner were dismissed as being without merit. The appeal filed by Srikant Dube, however, was allowed as, in the opinion of the appellate authority, his application had been filed within the prescribed period. The case was, therefore, remanded to the Regional Transport Authority for a fresh decision with a direction that the fourteen applications for temporary permit and the two applications of Jaiswal and Srikant Dube for the grant of a permanent permit may be considered for the grant of a temporary permit. On 28-8-1954, the Regional Transport Authority after considering these sixteen applications granted permit to Roshan Mistri. Jaiswal, Srikant Dube and the petitioner again filed separate appeals against the order of the Regional Transport Authority dated 28-8-1954 granting permit to Roshan Mistri, which were disposed of on 11-1-1956, and the order of the Regional Transport authority was modified to the extent that certain conditions were imposed to the grant of the permit to Roshan Mistri. Those conditions, however could not be carried out by Roshan Mistri and, therefore, the permit infavour of Roshan Mistri was cancelled and a temporary permit was granted to the petitioner on 28-2-1956. Towards the end of 1956 the State Government decided not to nationalise the above route and ordered for issue of permanent permit, and instructions were sent to the Regional Transport Authority to discontinue the practice of granting temporary permits and to take steps for permanent permits. Accordingly the petitioner filed an application in the prescribed form and with the requisite fee for making his temporary permit permanent which was advertised in the usual manner. An objection was raised by Jaiswal to the grant of a permit to the petitioner and it was stated that his petition filed in May, 1953 against the permanent vacancy was still pending which ought to be considered for the present permanent vacancy. The above objection was overruled by the Regional Transport Authority who granted a permanent permit to thd petitioner. Jaiswal preferred an appeal before the State Transport Authority who, on 1-11-1957, set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority granting, the permit to the petitioner and directed that the Regional Transport Authority should, first dispose of the applications including the application of the appellant (Jaiswal) in connection with the advertisement for the permanent route in 1953 and that, after they have disposed of these applications and granted the permit to one of the applicants, unless considered unfit for reasons to be recorded, it would be open to the Regional Transport Authority, for reasons to be recorded if they think so fit, to create another service on the same route and grant to such persons as they deem fit or may even dispose of the subsequent application of the respondent according to law. Being, thus aggrieved, the petitioner has made this application for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the above order of the State Transport Authority.

(2.) Cause has been shown by Jaiswal who has filed a counter affidavit. The sum and substance of that counter affidavit is that the application filed by him in May, 1953 was still pending for disposal against a permanent vacancy and that the petitioner could not get a permanent permit as he never made any application for the same before 30-5-1953 which was the last date for making an application for a permit against a permanent vacancy. It is also stated that he never got his above application considered on the occasion of granting a temporary permit.

(3.) Mr. Baldeva Sahai in support of the application has contended that the appeal preferred by Jaiswal before the State Transport Authority against the order of the Regional Transport Authority granting permit to the petitioner was not maintainable and the State Transport Authority had no jurisdiction to set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority, It is contended that Jaiswal was not an applicant for grant of a permanent permit after the State Government decided not to nationalise the route in question and, therefore, he had no right to prefer an appeal before the State Transport Authority. In reply to this contention, it was urged on behalf of Jaiswal that his application for a permit filed in May, 1953, against a permanent vacancy was still pending and that no application having been made by the petitioner before 30-5-1953, he was not entitled to get any permit for a permanent vacancy. On the contentions of the parties the question that arises for consideration is whether Jaiswal was an applicant so as to be entitled to get a permit for the permanent vacancy on the present occasion and whether the petitioner could legally be an applicant for such permit if he did not make any application for the same before 30-5-1953.