SALIMA BANO Vs. SALIMA BANO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks writ of certiorari for quashing the order of State Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 22 -2 -1975 passed in revision file No. 3 of 1972.

(2.) ONE Khaliq Bhat, the husband of the petitioner died leaving behind respondents 1 and 2 as his daughters and the petitioner as his widow. The deceased owned a truck No. JKA -5497 which according to the petitioner he had given her by way of gift but the truck and the route permit stood in his name. After the death of Khaliq Bhat the petitioner applied to the State Transport Authority for the transfer of route permit and registration of truck in her name. The State Transport Authority respondent No: 10 transferred the said truck and the route permit in the name of the petitioner vide order No: 8120/TC dated 4 -12 -1971. Respondent No. 1. thereupon filed a revision petition on 4 -10 -1972 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal praying for the quashing of the order of respondent No. 10 by virtue of which the truck had been ordered to be registered in the name of the petitioner along -with route permit. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal allowed the revision petition and remanded the case to the State Transport Authority for proper investigation and enquiry and for disposing of the matter according to law. The petitioner has assailed this order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter called "the Tribunal") on the following grounds. (i) that the tribunal had no power to entertain any revision in the matter after a lapse of 10 months; (ii) that the respondent No: 1 had no right to move the Tribunal inasmuch as she had no right, title or interest in the truck which according to the petitioner was her sole property; (iii) that the respondent No: 1 had not filed any appeal against the order of the State Transport Authority and as such could not file any revision. (iv) that the Tribunal had assumed jurisdiction which was not vested in it and therefore the order was bad in law ; (v) That the matter was of civil nature and could be decided by a civil court. Respondent No: 1 has filed a reply affidavit. Respondent No: 3 has also filed objections. No one has appeared on behalf of the other respondents.

(3.) IN the reply affidavit filed by respondent No: 1 she affirmed that the petitioner had suppressed the fact of the existence of the other heirs of Khaliq Bhat deceased and therefore the order of registration and transfer of the vehicle and the route permit secured by her in her favour was improper. The State Transport Authority did not give notice to the respondent No: 1 at the time of making the order. She had no knowledge about the order of transfer. When she came to know of this, she immediately filed the revision petition. She could not file an appeal as she was not a party before the State Transport Authority. The respondent has supported the order of the Tribunal. She has denied that the order passed by the Tribunal was without jurisdiction. Respondent No: 3 has supported respondent No: 1 in her objections.