B.L.Loomba - (1.) SUMER Chand Sharma has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assial the validity of the order dated 30-6-1989 of the Chairman, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U P. passed in revision No. 84 of 1981 under Section 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 Through this impugned order, the Tribunal set aside the order dated 25-6-1981 of the Regional Transport Authority, Dehradun where under transfer of half share in the regular stage carriage permit No 803 on Manglaur-Lakhnoti via Asif Nagar and allied routes (covered by vehicle HRR 189) was permitted in favour of present petitioner SUMER Chand Sharma.
(2.) IT is the undisputed position that permit for this route was granted in the year 1973 to Sukhbir Singh Sharma, respondent no. 4 by the R. T. A. Dehradun. This permit was lifted by respondent Sukhbir Singh Sharma with reference to the said vehicle in the year 1975. Sukhbir Singh Sharma entered into an agreement to transfer half share in the said vehicle aloogwith its covering permit in favour of respondent no. 3 Dhanpal Singh. This transfer was allowed by R. T. A. by order dated 9-4-1975. Respondents 4 and 3, as such were the co-owners and co-permit holders in respect of the said vehicle and the permit. The case of the petitioner Sumer Chand Sharma bas been that on 13-3-1977, respondent no. 4 Sukhbir Singh Sharma entered into an agreement with him to transfer bis half share in the said vehicle alongwith the permit for a consideration of Rs. 72000/- and an amount of Rs. 60,000/- out of the said 'sale consideration was paid to the said respondent on the same day and receipt acknowledging this payment and to testify the transfer of the share was executed. After about two years of the execution of this receipt, the petitioner moved an application before the R. T. A. seeking permission and order in respect of this transfer. This application was published in the U. P. Gazette on April 11, 1V81, as provided in Section 57 (3) of the said Act. Respondent no. 4 Sukhbir Singh Sharma filed his objection to the said application therein stating in categorical terms that he had not made any such transfer of the share in the vehicle or the permit and that the receipt dated 13-3-1977 relied upon by the petitioner was fictitious and forged and only to harm the interest of the respondent. It was mentioned in this objection that the petitioner Sumer Chand Sharma had also filed a criminal complaint under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code against a fictitious person and without impleading the respondent and on the basis of wrong assertions some order has been obtained in that criminal case The application seeking transfer of the share in the vehicle and the permit was thus opposed by respondent Sukhbir Singh Sharma (Annexure 3 to the Writ Petition). Matter of disposal of the application of the petitioner for transfer of the vehicle and permit came up for consideration before the R. T. A., Dehradun in its meeting dated 25-6-1981. It was disposed of under Resolution No. 13 (Copy Annexure 5). From perusal of this resolution it appears that one of the consideration which weighed with the R. T. A. was that Sukhbir Singh Sharma could not give any reason as to how the vehicle was in possession of Sumer Chand Sharma since 13-3-1987. It was also, observed that Sukhbir Singh Sharma could not give reason as to why he did not take any legal step against Sumer Chand Sharma in regard to receipt dated 13-3-1977. The receipt was accepted as a prima facie proof of the transfer of the share in the vehicle and the permit and on that basis the application was allowed. It was directed that Sumer Chand Sharma should pay Rs. 12000/- to Sukhbir Singh Sharma as agreed on 13-3-1977 as per the contents of the said receipt.
(3.) THE order of the R. T. A. was challenged before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and the revision was allowed as aforesaid. Learned Tribunal while allowing the revision observed that the receipt dated 13-3-1977 which is the main, rather a' the only basis of the claim of Sumer Chand Sharma was not free from suspicion. The respondent had denied its execution from the very beginning when application for transfer was notified in the Gazette and this receipt was stated to be fictitious and forged. It was observed that the R. T. A. appeared to have been influenced by the report of the District Magistrate wherein it was stated that there was no objection to the transfer and that this report itself was not prepared on any relevant and acceptable material and the assumption that Sumer Chand Sharma was put in possession of the vehicle and remained in its possession was wrong. The order of the Sub Judicial Magistrate dated 15-1-1979 permitting the vehicle to be given in the Supurdagi of tbe co-permit holder Dhanpal Sidgh and Sumer Chand Sharma was not enough to lead to this inference and, in any case, did not confer any right or . title on the Superdar -because property remained in the legal custody of the Court. It was also mentioned that the report of tbe Tahsildar which was forwarded by the District Magistrate was based on the order of the Magistrate regarding custody of the vehicle in criminal proceedings. Learned Tribunal rightly observed that the real point of controversy is as to whether the receipt dated 13-3- 1977 is genuine and since its genuineness was disputed, and it was said to be forged and fictitious, it could not be accepted without being proved to the satisfaction of the authority concerned and that the application seeking transfer being unilateral, it could not be accepted on its lace value. It was also observed that it was an incomplete transfer because nowhere it was alleged that the balance of the sale consideration of Rs. 12000/- had been paid The affidavits of the witnesses of the receipt were not filed. It appears that comparison of the admitted and disputed* signatures was also made by the Learned Tribunal for prima facie satisfaction about the genuiness or otherwise of the; receipt and for all the reasons set out in the order, the receipt was not found to be free from suspicion and, as such the revision was allowed as mentioned above.;