M.N.SHUKLA, J. - (1.) THESE two connected Writ Petitions arise out of the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U.P. Lucknow dated 14th Sept. 1973.
(2.) THE material facts of the cast are that applications for grant of permits were invited for three vacancies in the route known as Bulandshahr Bhon-Bahadurnagar route. The Regional Transport Authority in its meeting held on 12-3-1962 granted one permit to the petitioner viz. Messrs Modern Transport Co-operative Society Ltd. Hulandshahr (hereinafter referred to as the society) and two to others. The applications of respondents Nos. 3 and 4, namely, Nand Kishore and Munshi Lal Sharma respectively, who had made a joint application, was however, rejected. Against the grant of permit to the petitioner and to others (with whom we are not concerned in this case) respondents 3 and 4 filed an appeal, which came up for hearing on 22-8-1964 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which cancelled the permit of the petitioner and granted a permit to respondents 3, 4 jointly on the said route. Against the said order of grant of permit the petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court, which was eventually allowed by Broome, J. on 16th Sept, 1969 and the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal was quashed, Respondents 3 and 4 preferred a special appeal against the order of the learned single Judge. The special appeal Bench by its judgement dated 29-1-1972 refused to set aside the order of the learned single Judge in so far as it cancelled the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 22nd Aug, 1964, but it issued a direction that the appeal should be re-heard by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Before the appeal could be actually heard a scheme under S.68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was framed for the said route and the scheme is still pending disposal before the State Government. There is one very important fact which must be mentioned at this stage, namely, that the State Transport Undertaking also applied for grant of temporary permit on these vacancies and the strength having been augmented in the meantime, the Regional Transport Authority granted four temporary permits to the State Transport Undertaking under S.68-F(1-A) of the Act on the said route. When the appeals preferred by respondents 3 and 4 came up for hearing before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal it was of the view that the appeals had become infructuous and so it dismissed the same, but it directed that one temporary permit under S.68-F(1-C) could be issued in favour of respondent No. 4. Accordingly, one joint permit in favour of respondents 3 and 4 was issued by the order of the Tribunal dated 14th Sept. 1973. It is this order which has been impugned in these writ petitions. The contention of the petitioner, M/s. Modern Transport Co-operative Society, Bulandshahr in Writ No. 1666 of 1974 is that no such temporary permit could be granted by the Tribunal, whereas the contention of the petitioner in Writ No. 2649 of 1974 is that not only was the Tribunal right in granting temporary permit to them but it erred in refusing to grant them permanent permits as prayed for by them. The decision in these writ petitions would largely turn on the effect of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1969 (Act. 56 of 1969), which made material alterations and additions in the Motor Vehicles Act. In the instant case we are particularly concerned with the amendments incorporated in Ss.64 and 68-F. While the latter provision deals with the issue of permits to the State Transport Undertakings, the former relates to the right and forum of appeals. It is mainly in these two matters that the amending Act impinges on the rights of the parties which are in controversy in the present case. One of the effects of the new provisions was a change in the forum of appeal. S.64 originally stood as follows :- "64, Appeals - 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 ........... may, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, appeal to the prescribed authority who shall give such person and the original authority an opportunity of being heard." After amendment S.64 reads as follows :- "64. Appeals- (1) Any person- (a) aggrieved by the refusal of the State or Regional Transport Authority to grant a permit, or by any condition attached to a permit granted to him, or .......... may, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal constituted under Sub-Sec. (2), who shall, after giving such person and the original authority an opportunity of being heard, give a decision thereon which shall be final. (2) The State Government shall constitute for the State a State Transport Appellate Tribunal which shall consist of a whole time judicial Officer not below the rank of a District Judge : Provided that in relation to a Union territory the Tribunal may consist of the Administrator of that territory or any officer who has judicial experience. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-Sec. (1) or Sub-Sec. (2), every appeal pending at the commencement of the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1969 (56 of 1969) shall be proceeded with and disposed of as if that Act had not been passed........."
(3.) IT would be evident from the provisions extracted above that in the matter of appeals the Act has introduced two important changes. Firstly, it has created a new tribunal known as the State Transport Appellate Tribunal which would consist of a whole time Judicial Officer not below the rank of the District Judge. Formerly, appeals lay to the "Prescribed Authority," prescribed by the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules and the authority then prescribed was the Board of Revenue. As a consequence of the creation of this new body appeals now lay to this new appellate authority and not to the Prescribed Authority, as it formerly stood under the unamended Act. This alteration had a direct bearing on the point which arise for determination in the present case and this would have a far reaching effect on a large number of similar cases.;