- (1.) A. K. Yog, J. Heard learned coun sels for the petitioner as well as the respon dents and perused the record of the case
(2.) SMT. Nirmala Devi petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226, Constitution of India and seeks to impugn the judgment and order dated 9th January, 1991 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) by means of which Respondent No. 2/state Transport Appellate Tribunal, U. P. , Lucknow, passed an order of remand directing Chairman, Regional Transport Authority, Kanpur (Respondent No. 1) to decide the matter afresh. Detailed facts of the case are not required to be noted as the legal question, raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, can be decided without refer ring to the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that order of remand cannot be justified in view of the facts of the case mentioned in the impugned order and State Transport Appellate Tribunal (Respondent No. 2) has failed to discharge its statutory obligation to decide the ap peal before it on merit and none of the conclusions/finding of the Appellate Tribunal in the impugned order warranted its approach to send the case back for de novo hearing of all of the matter and thus, saddling the parties with unnecessary ex penses besides waste of time of the authorities and concerned parties.
(3.) THE State Transport Appellate Tribunal, narrated facts of the case, noted its long and chequered history (Para 12 of the order); referred to huge bulk of the case; observed that it attempted to ransack the relevant record; referred to Section 59 (1) and Section 61 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act (Old) and observed, 'if I go by the words that precede the order im pugned, they speak of Section 61 (2) of the old Act, which could not have been deployed by the R. T. A. ' In Para 16 of the order it is observed that 'in fact, the matter was not taken up in its correct perspective by the R. T. A. and it had allowed itself to be swaved by so many factors which I can say as irrelevant and in germane to the con troversy in issue before it' (R. T. A. ). The State Transport Appellate Tribunal undoubtedly failed to discharge its statutory obligation and erred in not deciding the matter on merit. Jurisdiction or power to remand can be exercised by a Court/tribunal only on limited grounds permissible under law.;