LAKSHMI PRASAD,J. - (1.) JUDGEMENT Regional Transport Authority, Lucknow Region, Lucknow prefers this appeal from the decision of a learned Single Judge allowing the respondents petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) ON 9th August, 1962 the respondent held a stage carriage permit on Barabanki -Kotwa route. It was valid up to 8th August, 1965. The said route was notified on 1st December, 1962 stating that the U. P. Government Road-ways would start plying buses with effect from 16th December, 1962. The respondent applied on 13th December, 1962 for an alternative route as a displaced operator. A true copy of that application is annexure 1 to the petition. In this application he indicated that he may be given an alternative permit on one of the three routes, namely Lucknow-Hardoi, Barabanki-Faizabad and Sitapur-Hardoi, On 15th December, 1962 Regional Transport Authority, Lucknow Region, Lucknow raised strength on Hardoi -Sitapur route from 6 to 14 and invited applications to fill the vacancies thus arising. A number of persons applied. Khushal Chand Mehrotra was one of them. On 19th January, 1963 the application of the respondent dated 13th December, 1962 came up for consideration before the Regional Transport Authority. By its resolution the Regional Transport Authority decided that the Secretary Member should dispose of the matter. A copy of that resolution is Annexure 3 to the petition. On 16th February, 1963 the Secretary offered an alternative permit to the respondent on Hardoi-Sitapur route. Annexure 4 to the petition is a true copy of that offer. It is on page 24 of the paper book. As appears from annexure 5 (Copy on page 26 of the paper book) which is a true copy of the respondents acceptance, the respondent accepted the aforesaid offer on the same date, namely, 16th February, 1963. On 18th February, 1963 Khushal Chand Mehrotra filed an objection before the Chairman, Regional Transport Authority against the proposal to grant a permit to the respondent on Hardoi-Sitapur route. A true copy of that objection is annexure 6 to the petition. On the same date the Chairman called upon the Regional Transport Officer to submit his report and directed that the issue of permit be stayed. A true copy of that order is annexure 7 to the petition. On 25th February, 1963 Ganga Dhar Mehrotra, an existing operator of that route, moved another objection before the Chairman, Regional Transport Authority taking exception to the move to bring some displaced operators on Hardpi-Sitapur route. The matter thus remained pending before the Regional Transport Authority till 2nd May, 1963, when the said authority decided to grant an alternative permit to the respondent on Hardoi-Shahjahanpur route instead of Hardoi-Sitapur route which was one of the routes desired by the respondent and had been actually accepted by him on the offer made in that behalf by the Secretary-Member of the Regional Transport Authority. Aggrieved by this order of the Regional Transport Authority, the respondent moved a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying that the same be quashed and the Regional Transport Authority be directed to issue a permit to the respondent on Hardoi-Sitapur route. 2A. In identical circumstances a Division Bench of this Court in writ petition No. 296 of 1963, D/- 7-8-1964 (All), Jugal Kishore Agarwal v. Regional Transport Authority, quashed a similar order passed by the Regional Transport Authority and directed the Authority to issue a permit to Jugal Kishore Agarwal on Hardoi-Sitapur route on which he had been offered an alternative permit and which permit he had already accepted. As appears from the judgment of the Division Bench in that writ petition, two contentions were raised on behalf of the Regional Transport Authority against the prayer made by the petitioner in that case. The first contention was that the Regional Transport Authority had every jurisdiction to vary the offer once made under Section 68-G (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act notwithstanding its acceptance by the displaced operator. The other contention was that the offer having been made by the Secretary-Member of the Regional Transport Authority was not a valid offer at all within the ambit of sub-section (2) of Section 68-G of the Motor Vehicles Act notwithstanding a resolution of the Regional Transport Authority delegating power to the Secretary-Member in that behalf since it was a matter in respect of which, there could be no valid delegation. Relying on the case of Abdul Gafoor v. State of Mysore, AIR 1961 SC 1556, the Division Bench repelled the contention that there could be no valid delegation. The material observations made by the Division Bench in that case run as below:- "It is true that Judicial or quasi-Judicial function cannot be delegated by one authority to another without specific authority to that effect in the legislation but where an authority exercises merely administrative powers it can delegate its powers to another authority. When the action to be taken is mechanical or ministerial in nature power can be delegated without any specific authority having been conferred in that behalf by the Statute or the rules made thereunder. Thus the Regional Transport Authority could, as it did by its resolution, delegate its powers to its Secretary to dispose of the application of the petitioner. Therefore, when the Regional Transport Officer made an offer to the petitioner for permit on the Hardoi-Sitapur route he was doing so validly and in exercise of the powers conferred on him by the Regional Transport Authority." As regards the other contention, the Division Bench observes:- "The offer was duly made and it was accepted. The agreement was thus complete and it was no more open to the Regional Transport Authority to revoke the offer and make offer for another route. Sub-section (2) of Section 68-G lays down that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no compensation would be payable on account of the cancellation of any existing permit or any modification of the terms thereof, when a permit for an alternative route or area in lieu thereof has been offered by the Regional Transport Authority accepted by the holder of the permit. The intention of the Legislature in enacting this provision was that an offer for permit of another route should be made to a displaced operator and once he accepts it the agreement is complete and it is no more open to him to claim compensation. Likewise it is not open to the Regional Transport Authority as well to resile from its offer once it has been made and duly accepted."
(3.) IT was on the basis of the aforesaid reasoning that the contentions raised by the Regional Transport Authority were repelled and Jugal Kishore Agarwal, petitioner in that case, was granted the relief already indicated above. Learned Single Judge, who disposed of the case under appeal, felt himself bound by the decision of the Division Bench and accordingly allowed the petition of the respondent quashing the impugned order giving an alternative permit to the respondent on Hardoi-Shahjahanpur route and directing the Regional Transport Authority to grant him an alternative permit on Hardoi-Sitapur route as already agreed to between the parties.;