Manas Nath Roy, J. - (1.) This appeal was directed against the judgment and order dated 26th February, 1985, made in Civil Rule No. 13209(W) of 1983, by Justice Mrs. Khastgir, whereby, the learned Judges, on allowing an application dated 24th January, 1984, filed by the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 in the writ petition before her and who are also Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 in this appeal, vacated the interim order, as was obtained by the writ petitioner appellant (hereinafter referred to the said petitioner), in the circumstances as indicated hereafter.
(2.) The said petitioner, who is appellant before us, moved and obtained the concerned Civil Rule on 31st December, 1983, challenging the validity of a decision dated 30th December, 1983, made by the Respondent State Transport Appellate Tribunal, whereby the grant of a joint contract carriage (Mini Bus) permit in his favour and in favour of Respondent No. 11, on the route Siliguri to Galgalia (hereinafter referred to the said route), by the Respondent, Regional Transport Authority, Darjeeling, in respect of vehicle WGY 2847, which was also stated to be jointly owned by them, was set aside and cancelled. It should be noted that from the appearances of the learned Advocates either before the learned Trial Judge or before us, it appeared that all the Respondents, excepting Respondent No. 1, the Presiding Officer of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, have appeared and were duly represented in both the proceedings and in fact on the basis of the statements made by Mr. Majumder, we have recorded earlier on 20th March, 1985, while fixing the appeal for hearing, that he was appearing for Respondent Nos. 8 to 10, apart from recording the appearances by the other contesting Respondents. We also keep it on record that in a proceedings like the present one, the Tribunal do seldom enter appearance and such non-appearance in this case was also not fatal, as we had the advantage of looking at the order as impeached, which was produced, referred to and relied on by the parties. Mr. Majumder also produced the records of the Regional Transport Authority, before us and he made a statement that these records were also produced and placed before the learned Trial Judge. In fact, there was no dispute or any difference of opinion amongst the learned Advocates appearing before us on such production of the concerned records.
(3.) It was the case of the said petitioner that he and Respondent No. 11, were and are the joint owners of a permanent contract carriage (Mini Bus) permit, being No. 825/83, in respect of their vehicle WGY 2847 (hereinafter referred to as the said Bus) and pursuant to that permit, they were and are plying on the route Siliguri to Galgalia (hereinafter referred to as the said route) and vice versa. Such grant, according to the said petitioner, was received on 9th November, 1983.;