SHITALDAS PARTNER DAMODARDAS SHITALDAS Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE AUTHORITY
LAWS(MPH)-1967-3-1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided on March 24,1967

SHITALDAS, PARTNER, DAMODARDAS SHITALDAS Appellant
VERSUS
STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE AUTHORITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing the order, dated 10th June, 1965, passed by the State transport Appellate Authority Madhya Pradesh by which the petitioner's Appeal no. 224 of 1961 was dismissed by that authority as barred by limitation and the appeal (No. 201 of 1961) of the respondent No 3 was allowed and it was granted a permit on the route Hanumana-Tilgawan for one return trip daily.
(2.) THE facts of the case are that the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa, by its notification, dated 9th September, 1961, had invited applications for grant of a stage carriage permit on Hanumana-Tilgawan route for one return trip daily various operators applied for the permit The Regional Transport Authority Rewa, granted the permit to the respondent No 4, while the applications of the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 were rejected They preferred appeals before the appellate Authority as indicated above. In the meanwhile the permit granted to the respondent No 4 was cancelled under Section 60 of the Motor Vehicles Act. For one reason or the other the appeal did not come up for hearing for a considerable time and in the meanwhile the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa, had issued a ceiling order When the appeals came up for hearing before the Appellate authority, the ceiling order had come into operation and that authority dismissed the appeal of the petitioner as well as that of the respondent No. 3 on the ground that grant of permit would result in piercing the ceiling. The petitioner alone challenged the order of the State Transport Appellate Authority by a petition under article 226 of the Constitution (Misc. Petition No. 183 of 1964) That petition was allowed and the order of the Appellate Authority was quashed and the case was remitted to that authority for decision on merits.
(3.) ON remand, the Appellate Authority dismissed the petitioner's appeal on the ground that the prescribed court-fee of Rs. 6 was not affixed to the memorandum of appeal when it was filed and that when the deficit was made good the appeal had become barred by limitation. Though the respondent No. 3 had not Wed any writ petition challenging the order of dismissal of his appeal, the Appellate authority proceeded on the assumption that his appeal was also revived when its original order was quashed by this Court and on that fooling considered the appeal of the respondent No. 3 and grunted it the permit by its order dated 10th June, 1965. That order is under challenge before us.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.