RAMNATH PRASAD Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case a rule has been obtained, from the High Court, by the petitioner on an application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, against the opposite party to show cause why a writ, in the nature of certiorari, would not be issued quashing the order, of the Appeal Board of the State Transport Authority dated 3-3-1956, passed on an appeal Abdul Majid Khan, opposite party No. 2. The Advocate-General has shown cause against the rule on behalf of, the opposite party but no counter-affidavit has been filed on their behalf.

(2.) The petitioner applied for a stage carriage permit under Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act IV of 1939), hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for the Purnea-Kishunganj route. On 26-9-1950, Abdul Majid Khan, opposite party No. 2 also applied for a similar permit for the same route. On 29-5-1951, the East Bihar Regional Transport Authority hereinafter mentioned as "R.T.A." granted stage carriage permits to both the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 for the Purnea-Kishunganj route. One Suraj Narain Mitra, who was also one of the applicants for a similar permit for the same route, being aggrieved by the above order of the R.T.A. preferred an appeal, under Section 64(a) of the Act. to the Appeal Board of the State Transport Authority hereinafter mentioned as the "Appeal Board". On 7-1-1953, the Appeal Board directed one of the two permits to be granted to the appel-lants Suraj Narain Mitra, and remanded the matter to the R.T.A. for deciding which of the two persons, namely the petitioner arid opposite party No. 2 should get the second permit. The peti-titioner on notice by the R.T.A. appeared but opposite party no. 2 did not appear before the R.T.A. The R. T. A. therefore on 26-2-1953, allowed the permit of the petitioner to stand and cancelled the permit of the opposite party No. 2 and directed him to surrender his permit.

(3.) On 17-3-1953, opposite party No. 2 filed an application for review of the above order of R.T.A. passed in his absence on the ground that he had not been served with any notice of the hearing of the matter before the R.T.A. In the said application he also prayed for stay of the operation of the order of the R.T.A. dated 26-2-1953, asking opposite party No. 2 to surrender his permit. On 29-3-1953, the R.T.A. admitted this application of opposite party No. 2 and stayed the operation of its order dated 26-2. 1953, and asked for a report from the Secretary, R.T.A. regarding the complaint of opposite party No. 2 about the non-receipt of the notice pf the hearing of the case before the R.T.A. by opposite party No. 2. On 25-4-1953, the R.T.A. found after receipt of the report of the Secretary, that notice had been served on opposite party No. 2 and, therefore, rejected the application for review filed by opposite party No. 2 and vacated the order of stay.