ABHEY KUMAR JAIN Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two connected writ petitions directed against the same order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur (here in after called 'the STAT') dated June 29, 1977. The facts giving rise to these petitions are almost identical. It will, therefore, suffice to give facts from S.B. Writ Petition No. 310 of 1977 Abhey Kumar Jain v. The STAT and Ors.

(2.) THERE is a route called Osian -Shergarh route. This route is an interregional route lying exclusively within the territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur (hereinafter called 'the RTA'). On this route there was already a scope of two permits against which permits had been granted. Later on scope in respect of this route was revised to four permits with two return services In order to fill up two vacancies caused on account of revision of scope, the RTA invited applications for the grant of two non -temporary permits on the said route vide Gazette Notification dated May 6, 1976. In response to the said Notification applications were submitted to the RTA. There were three claimants for the above two vacancies, namely, Abhey Kumar Jain, Berisal Singh and the non -petitioner No. 3 Satguru Bus Service. These applications were considered by the RTA in its meeting held on January 17, 1977. The RTA by its resolution dated January 17 1977, granted one permit to Abhey Kumar Jain, petitioner, and the second to Bengal Singh. Non -petitioner No. 3 Sat guru Bus Service, therefore, felt aggrieved by the said order and carried the matter by way of appeal before the STAT. The STAT after briefly narrating the contentions raised before it, gave its finding which need not be dealt with in detail here. Suffice it to say that the STAT was of the opinion that there were no sufficient materials before it to decide the case effectively on merits. The STAT, therefore, remanded the case bad to the RTA for considering the merits and demerits of the claims of the respective parties in the light of the observations made in its judgment. This order was passed by the STAT on June 29, 1977.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the impugned order of the STAT. The STAT has high lighted some of the lacunae relating to the materials placed before it and has observed that it would not be possible for it to give a firm finding relating to the merits and demerits of the claims of the respective claimants in respect of above two permits in the absence of sufficient materials The STAT was, therefore, of the opinion that in order to do fuller justice to the parties it would be just and proper to remand the case in order to enable the respective parties in place sufficient material in support of their respect claims for complete and final adjudication of the claims of the respective parties.