- (1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been referred to a Division Bench by Hon'ble Asthana, J. The material undisputed facts may be stated thus: The petitioner. Ram Swarup, and six others were holding stage carriage permits on Meerut-Rohta-Bhnauli-Baraut route under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. On a proposal of these operators, the Regional Transport Authority decided, with the approval of the State Transport Authority, to take the route viz. , Barnawa and the modified route was Meerut Rohta Barnasa Binauli Baraut. Thereupon the Regional Transport Authority invited applications for the modified route and the petitioner, Ram Swamp, and others made applications for variation in their permits in accordance with the modified route. Meerut Sardhana Passenger Transport Assocation objected to the variation in the permits of the petitioner and others, but the Regional Transport Authority held the objection as time-barred and granted variation in the permits of the petitioner and others. Raghunandan Prasad, who is a member of the Meerut Sardhana Passenger Transport Association but who had not filed any objection in his personal capacity, filed an appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal against the grant of variation in the permits of the petitioner and others. The petitioner contended that no such appeal lay at the instance of Raghunandan Prasad since he had filed no objection before the Regional Transport Authority. The Appellate Tribunal, however, relying upon a decision of the Rajasthan High Court held that the appeal was competent under Section 64 (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioner then presented this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution contending that the appeal filed by Raghundan Prasad is incompetent and praying that the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal be quashed. Asthana J. who heard the petition, felt that since under Sub-section (8) of Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act an application to vary the conditions of a permit has to be treated as an application for grant of a new permit, the variation in the permits of the petitioner and others could be appealable under Section 64 (f) of the Act, but a Division Bench of this High Court having taken the view, in Bhan Singh v. Regional Transport Authority, Meerut, AIR 1967 All 163, that an application to vary the conditions of a permit cannot be deemed to be an application for grant of a permit, his Lordship considered that the decision required reconsideration and referred the case to a larger Bench.
(2.) IT was not argued before us on behalf of Raghunandan Prasad that the appeal under consideration was competent under Section 64 (f) on the ground that, in view of Sub-section (8) of Section 57, the applications of the petitioner and others for variation of the permits ought to be regarded as applications for new permits for the modified route. The only point pressed before us on his behalf was that the appeal is maintainable under Section 64 (b) of the Act. On behalf of the petitioner on the other hand it was urged that Section 64 (b) is not applicable in the circumstances of the case. Section 64, omitting the unnecessary parts thereof, reads thus:-- "any person- (a) aggrieved by the refusal of the State or a Regional Transport Authority to grant a permit, or by any condition attached to a permit granted to him, or (b) aggrieved by the revocation or suspension of the permit or by any variation of the conditions thereof, or. . . . . . . . . (f) being a local authority or police authority or an association which, or a person providing transport facilities who, having opposed the grant of a permit, is aggrieved by the grant thereof or by any condition attached thereto, or (i ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . may. . . . . . . . . . . . appeal to the prescribed authority. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "
(3.) THE true scope and meaning of Clause (b) of Section 64 have been discussed by several High Courts including this High Court.;