SUBANSH JHA Vs. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the petitioner has moved the High Court for grant of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution fox the purpose of calling up and quashing an order of the Deputy Minister of Transport, dated 11-9-1959, made in an appeal against the order of the State Transport Authority, dated 18-2-1959. Cause has been shown by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the State Transport Authority and the Deputy Minister of Transport who are respondents 1 and 2 to the application. Cause has also been shown by the learned Government Advocate on behalf of respondents 3 and 4, Sri Sarjoo Prasad Singh and Sri S. M. Islam.

(2.) It appears that on 23-7-1958, a notice was published in the Bihar Gazette on behalf of the State Transport Authority, inviting applications for a stage carriage permit for a new service on the route Aurangabad Ranchi, Via Chhatarpur, Hariharganj and Daltongunj. On 17-9-1958, the State Transport Authority published a notice in the Bihar Gazette inviting objections, if any, to the applications filed before it for the grant of the stage carriage permit. The petitioner Subansh Jha and certain other persons filed objections before the State Transport Authority on the ground that no such service on the route was necessary. On 8-2-1959, the State Transport Authority duly heard the objections and the applicants for the stage carriage permit and decided that there was no necessity for any direct service between Ranchi and Aurangabad and did not, therefore, consider the comparative merits of the various applicants for the proposed route. Against this order of the State Transport Authority respondents 3 and 4, namely, Sri Sarjoo Prasad Singh and Sri S. M. Islam, preferred appeals before the Government of Bihar. The appeals were heard by the Deputy Minister of Transport, who also took the view that there was no justification for granting a permanent stage carriage permit. The Deputy Minister, however, observed that "Ranchi may become a place of attraction with the establishment of the Heavy Engineering Corporation and other Central Corporations and will very soon provide employment and work to many people of the State". He, therefore, directed that the "route may be tried for six months and the appellants Sri Sarjoo Prasad Singh and Sri S. M. Islam may be given temporary permits for the same period".

(3.) The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the order of the Deputy Minister of Transport is ultra vires and illegal. It was submitted that the Deputy Minister of Transport has no authority to grant temporary permits in an appeal preferred under Section 64 (a), of the Motor Vehicles Act. In our opinion this contention is well founded and must prevail. Section 64(a) reads as follows: "64. Appeals, -- Any person (a) aggrieved by the refusal of the state or a Regional Transport Authority to grant a permit, or by any condition attached to a permit granted to him, X X X X X X may, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, appeal to the prescribed authority who shall give such person and the original authority an opportunity of being heard." The procedure for granting permanent permits is laid down in Section 57 of the Statute which reads as follows :