- (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution questioning the validity of an order passed by the U. P. State Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 21st April, 1973 by which a revision filed by Srimati Afsari Begum respondent No. 3 to this petition was allowed and the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Lucknow dated 2nd January, 1973 transferring the permit No. 381 of Vehicle No. USD-583 from the name of Srimati Afsari Begum to the name of Asad Yar Khan, the petitioner in this writ petition, was set aside.
(2.) IT appears that in 1958 a permit was granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Lucknow in the name of Srimati Afsari Begum for plying a private stage carriage on Barabanki-Ganeshpur route. Later on the route was changed and the permit held good for Hardoi-Beniganj-Sandila route. During the period appropriate endorsements were made in the permit. In 1972 the said permit stood for the Vehicle No. USD-583. Srimati Afsari Begum is the widowed sister of the petitioner Asad Yar Khan. On 14-81972 the petitioner applied under Sec. 59 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act to the Regional Transport Authority, Lucknow for transfer of the said permit in his name. On 12-9-1972 Srimati Afsari Begum filed an objection. On 26-11-1972 the petitioner filed a detailed affidavit amplifying the allegations made in the original application for the transfer of permit. On 27-11-1972 the Regional Transport Authority heard the parties and reserved orders. Then on 2-1-1973 the Regional Transport Authority allowed the application of the petitioner and transferred the permit in his name. It appears that in the final part of the order instead of the word "permit" the word "vehicle" was mentioned. On 4-1-1973 the petitioner went before the registration authority under the Motor Vehicles Act and got the Vehicle No. USD-583 registered in his name. Then the petitioner made an application before the Regional Transport Authority for correction of the order. The Regional Transport Authority by its order dated 17-1-1973 corrected the mistake by substituting the word "permit" for the word "vehicle" in the final order. Srimati Afsari Begum being aggrieved filed a revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal which as said above, allowed the revision on 24-1-1973, and set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority. The main controversy between the parties before the transport authorities related to the ownership of the Vehicle No. USD-583 to which the permit in question related. The petitioner's case was that his widowed sister Asfari Begum was living with him and in 1958 he acquired a vehicle and got the permit No. 381 issued benami in the name of his sister Srimati Afsari Begum as the petitioner had already several other permits in his name. The allegation of the petitioner further was that on 13-2-1960 Srimati Afsari Begum executed a document in which she admitted the benami nature of her status and gave an undertaking that whenever the petitioner wanted the permit to be endorsed in its own name she will not raise any objection. However, even after this agreement the permit continued to remain in the name of Srimati Afsari Begum with the change of vehicles which is alleged were always purchased by the petitioner. It was alleged in the affidavit filed by the petitioner before the Regional Transport Authority on 26-11-1972 that the Vehicle No. USD 583 was acquired by him for Rs. 26,000.00 from one Mohammad Soyab. The case of the petitioner before the Regional Transport Authority was that Srimati Afsari Begum had no assets of her own and her name was just benami as regards vehicles and the permit, it was the petitioner who was booking after the business of running the stage carriage on the route endorsed on the permit and it was he who was keeping the accounts and receiving the earnings. It was alleged that Srimati Afsari Begurn was always supported by the petitioner and she was living in the house of the petitioner but some time after Srimati Afsari Begum had married her daughter to Irshad Ali, the son-in- law, having an evil eye on the vehicle and the permit got his mother-in-law shifted to his own house so as to cause loss and embarrassment to the petitioner. The petitioner thus having been alarmed with this attitude of his sister and Irshad Ali, her son-in-law, was compelled to apply for the transfer of the permit to the Regional Transport Authority. Srimati Afsari Begum in her objection refuted the allegation that the permit and the vehicle endorsed in the permit was benami. She alleged that the permit was always in her name and she was the owner of the vehicle endorsed in the permit. She further alleged that the so-called agreement or document said to have been executed by her on 13-2-60 was not a genuine act on her part, her brother having taken a thumb impression on a blank paper forged the contents thereon.
(3.) THE Regional Transport Authority on a consideration of the entire material on record recorded a finding that the permit and the vehicle in question were benami in the name of Srimati Afsari Begum and the petitioner was the real owner thereof. On this finding the Regional Transport Authority transferred the permit in the name of the petitioner. In revision the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, however, held that the question as to whether the permit was benami in the name of Srimati Afsari Begum could not have been decided by the Regional Transport Authority and the permit ought not to have been transferred in the name of the petitioner unless the petitioner had obtained a decree of the Civil Court as to the benami nature of the transaction. A perusal of the order of the Appellate Tribunal would show that it has contradicted itself. In the earlier part of its order the Appellate Tribunal criticised the Regional Transport Authority in not examining the attesting witnesses to the agreement dated 13 2- 1960 but later on it held that such a question could not have been decided by the transport authorities as it fell beyond their power.;