BHOPAL CHAND Vs. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution by Bhopalchand Mehta against the State Transport Authority and others and arises in the following circumstances - The applicant was plying a stage carriage on the Koselao-Bali route from 1951. In October, 1952 he applied for the grant of a permit on Koselao-Bali route and a permit was granted to him for three years for that route from the 1st of January' 1953. , to the 31st of December, 1955. The dispute seems to have arisen as to the route to be followed between Koselao and Bali. The applicant contended that railway station, Rani was included in his route. Other bus-owners who were apparently interested in the trafic at the Rani railway station contended that it was not so. THIS matter was considered by the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur, and it ordered in April, 1954, that Rani was not included in this route and that the applicant's bus should not ply up to Rani. Thereupon, there was an appeal by the applicant to the Appellate Authority under sec. 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act. That appeal was allowed by the Appellate Authority on the 4th of March, 1955, and it was ordered that the applicant be allowed to ply his bus via Rani on the Koselao-Bali route. Then there was a review application before the Appellate Authority by opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4. THIS review application was accepted on the 14th of February, 1956, and the order of the Regional Transport Authority, which excluded Rani from this route, was in effect restored. It may be mentio-ned that the permit about which all this dispute arose had expired on the 31st of December, 1955. But as the Appellate Authority had not decided the matter a temporary permit was granted to the applicant for three months up to the end of March, 1956. The present application was made on the 3rd of March, 1956, when that temporary permit was in force.

(2.) THE main contention of the applicant before us is that the Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to review its order passed in appeal under sec. 64 and the order of 14th of February, 1956, is of no force and effect and the order passed in March, 1955, stands.