RAM DAYAL Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both these writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (Annexure 7) dated 5th November, 1982, and as such the same are being disposed of by one single order.

(2.) The petitioner Ram Dayal in writ petition No. 1801/1982 and Radhey Shyam in writ petition No. 1802/82, were granted one temporary permit each by the Regional Transport Authority (hereinafter called 'the R.T.A.') by a resolution No. 50, D/- 28th August, 1982. The route is Dausa-Gudachanderji, which is 61 Kms. long and 'A' class in nature. The scope on this route was 6 permits to ply four return trips. By resolution No. 7 dated 28th August, 1982, the R.T.A. Jaipur, revised the scope to 8 permits and six return services. The petitioners submitted applications for grant of temporary permits on the two increased scope of permits. The R.T.A. by resolution No. 50 D/- 28th August, 1982, granted one temporary permit each in favour of the petitioners. The order granting temporary permits has been filed as Annexure 3 along with the writ petition. Respondents Ram Kumar and Messrs. Chiranji Lal Madan Lal, who were already existing operators on the said route filed an appeal under Section 64 (l)(f) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called 'the Act') before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter called 'the S.T.A.T.'). Learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal by her order dated 5th November, 1982, (Annexure 7) allowed the appeal and cancelled the temporary permits granted to the petitioners. Learned S.T.A.T. further directed the R.T.A. to take suitable steps for getting the six services plied by the operators of this route. Aggrieved against the order of the S.T.A.T. the petitioners have filed these writ petitions.

(3.) Mr. R.N. Munshi, learned counsel for the petitioners, first contended that no appeal was maintainable before the S.T.A.T. under Section 64 (1) (f) of the Act. It was contended that the respondents ought to have opposed the grant of the permit and they having failed to do so were not entitled to prefer an appeal. If a person had an opportunity to oppose an application but failed to do so then he cannot be allowed to file an appeal and he also cannot take the plea that as an appeal does not lie, a revision would be maintainable. In support of the above proposition reliance has been placed on Bheru Lal v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur AIR 1977 Raj 29. However, a similar argument was raised before the S.T.A.T. but the same was repelled.