MOHD INTIZAR AHMAD Vs. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
LAWS(ALL)-1965-4-5
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on April 21,1965

MOHD.INTIZAR AHMAD Appellant
VERSUS
STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Dwivedi, J. - (1.)THE petitioner challenges the order of the State Transport Authority, Lucknow. THE order suspends his permit for a stage carriage for a period of two months.
(2.)THE petitioner operates his stage carriage on Budaun-Bilsi-Sahaswan route. On October 20, 1959, the Regional Transport Officer checked his vehicle on the route and detected several violations of the law. On October 20, 1959 he passed an order suspending forthwith the petitioner's permit and asking him to show cause why the permit should not be cancelled. THE petitioner submitted his explanation. THEreafter his case came up for consideration before the Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly. After hearing him the Regional Transport Authority passed a composite order on November 25, 1959. THE Regional Transport Authority suspended his permit for two months: in lieu of suspension ho was asked to pay a sum of Rs. 500 on or before December 10, 1959, failing which the order of suspension would come into operation. He deposited the said amount. In April, 1960 the State Transport Authority suo motu sent for the record of his case in exercise of its power under Section 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter called the Act). He was heard by the State Transport Authority. After hearing him the State Transport Authority set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority and passed an order suspending his permit for two months. It also made a direction that the amount of Rs. 500 should be refunded to him.
Before the Regional Transport Authority the main charge against the petitioner was that on October 16, 1959, his vehicle was carrying 114 passengers. The permitted seating capacity of the vehicle was 60. So the vehicle was carrying 54 more passengers than its lawful seating capacity. Twenty of the passengers were sitting on the bus-top. These facts are not disputed by the petitioner. Obviously he has committed a dangerous breach of the transport law. His vehicle was carrying 20 passengers on the bus- stop at grave risk to their life and personal security. The State Transport Authority believed that the Regional Transport Authority improperly overlooked the magnitude of the breach and wrongly made an order under Sub-section (3) of Section 60 of the Act for compounding the breach on payment of Rs. 500 by the petitioner. Accordingly the State Transport Authority sot aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority and suspended the petitioner's permit for two months.

Counsel for the petitioner has argued that no revision lay under Section 64A from the order of the Regional Transport Authority. A revision lies to the State Transport Authority under Section 64A from an order of the Regional Transport Authority from which no appeal lies. It is submitted that an appeal lay against that part of the order of the Regional Transport Authority which suspended the petitioner's permit for two months.

(3.)IT is true that an appeal lay from that part of the order of the Regional Transport Authority which suspended his permit for two months. But as already stated, the order of the Regional Transport Authority is a composite Order. IT consists of two parts: (1) IT suspended the petitioner's permit for two months; (2) in the alternative, it directs him to pay a sum of Rs. 500 in lien of suspension. While an appeal lay against the first part, no appeal lay against the second part.
In the circumstances of the case the second part was in substance the real order. As he had paid Rs. 500 as required by the second part, the first part became inoperative. Since no appeal lay against the second part, the State Transport Authority could interfere with it in revision.

;


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