Sinha, J. - (1.) The petitioner is a refugee from Eastern Pakistan. After the partition, he came to West Bengal and it appears that, as a measure of rehabilitation, the R.T.A., Calcutta Region, in May, 1949, granted a permit to the petitioner to run a bus in route No. 54 being a route between Howrah and Bally Khal. In the application for such a permit, the petitioner had to answer a question as to whether he owned any bus in Pakistan or had any transport business and he gave the following answer:- "Yes, for about 8 years at Jessore (route No. 13, Jessore to Keshabpur). Cancelled on account of old model bus No. BGE 108. Replacement ordered before partition but cancelled immediately after partition. Documentary evidence shall be furnished whenever demanded." One Purna Chandra Chatterjee and Hare Krishna Das made a complaint to the R.T.A. that the petitioner had made a false representation in his application, inasmuch as he was never a permit-holder in respect of bus No. BGE 198, at Jessore. Hare Krishna Das claimed that he was the owner of the bus and that the petitioner had never run it. As a result of these representations, the R.T.A. on or about the 9th of October, 1950, requested the petitioner to produce the registration certificate and other relevant documents showing that the petitioner had been the owner of bus No. BGE 108 in Jessore and also to produce the original order of cancellation issued by the R.T.A. Jessore, by the 14th October, 1950. On the 27th of February, 1951, the Secretary, R.T.A, called upon the petitioner to show cause why the permit granted to him in respect of route No. 54, should not be cancelled under section 60(1) (d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner duly showed cause which was considered by the R.T.A., at its meeting on the 29th of March, 1951. wherein it was decided that the permit of the petitioner should be cancelled. From the said decision the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Provincial Transport Authority on or about the 4th of May, 1951, and pending the appeal the status quo was directed to be maintained. It appears that the appeal was rejected. On or about the 17th of August, 1951, the petitioner preferred a further appeal to the Member, Board of Revenue, which was numbered Appeal No. 85 of 1951. Further proceedings for cancellation of permit was stayed until the disposal of the case by the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue considered the matter and came to the conclusion that the petitioner had been rather harshly treated and that the matter should be remanded for reconsideration. The Hon'ble Member, Board of Revenue, observed that it was well-known that official papers and records from East Bengal were difficult to obtain. The petitioner had filed two certificates granted by Dr. J.R. Dhar which were to the effect that the petitioner had been running buses at Jessore before the partition. The Board of Revenue observed that Dr. Dhar was a very responsible person and the R.T.A. might examine him, if necessary.
(2.) Upon remand, the matter was reheard by the State Transport Authority, West Bengal, who again rejected the appeal. On or about the 19th September, 1952, the petitioner preferred an appeal against this order to the Board of Revenue. On or about the 23rd of October, 1952, there was published an amendment of the Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules whereby it was provided as follows:- "The authority to decide an appeal against an order of the State Transport Authority or a Sub-committed thereof in respect of any of the matters referred to in clause (b) of section 64 shall be a committee to be appointed in this behalf by the State Government by a general or a special order and any person intending to prefer an appeal against an order of the State Transport Authority or a Subcommittee thereof in respect of such matter, shall, within thirty days of the receipt of the order, do so in writing."
(3.) Pursuant to this rule, by a notification published in the Calcutta Gazette on the 6th of August, 1953, the State Government appointed a committee consisting of the respondents S.C. Singha Roy. Dr. Amulya Dhan Mukherjee and Dr. Jiban Ratan Dhar as authority to decide appeals under rule 83 of the said Rules. It is this committee which dealt with the appeal of the petitioner which was then pending before the Board of Revenue, and, on the 23rd of September, 1953, rejected the appeal. The petitioner makes a grievance that he was not heard But this aspect of the matter is unnecessary to be considered in view of the decision to which I have arrived on the real point, namely, as to whether the Committee was competent to hear an appeal which was then pending before the Board of Revenue. In this rule the petitioner challenges the jurisdiction of the Committee to consider the appeal and the decision arrived at by the Committee dated 23rd of September, 1953.;