- (1.) The petitioner is the owner of a Bus bearing Registration No. WB-57/3180. The petitioner was from time to time permitted to ply the said Bus in replacement of n Bus bearing No. WGE 1359 the Bus bearing No. WGE 1359 did not have a permanent permit. It wen permitted to ply on temporary permits. At one stage despite receipt of fees for grant of a temporary permit, no temporary permit vet punted is favour of the petitioner in respect of the Bus bearing No WB-57/3180. the petitioner, thus, approached this court by filling a writ petition and an order was passed by this Court on the said application being W.P. No 2557(W) of 1999 on 18th February, 1999, directing the concerned authorities to take steps for granting temporary permits to the petitioner on the route in question,in accordance with law, within one month from the date of communication of that order, litre is no dispute that in terms of the said direction of this Court, a temporary permit was granted to the petitioner.
(2.) In the meantime, the petitioner had applied for grant of permanent permit in respect of the same Bus and for the same route on which the petitioner was granted occasional temporary permits. That application was not considered. The petitioner, thus, approached this Court by filling a writ petition sad that writ petition being W. P. No. 21162(W) of 1998 was disposed of on 23rd December, 1998. whereby this Court directed the authority concerned to consider end dispose of the said application by the petitioner for grant of a permanent permit within two months from the date of communication of tie order. Pursuant to the said order dated 23rd December, 1998. It is claimed by the respondents that the matter was considered by the concerned authority whereupon the impugned order dated 19tb March, 1199 had been passed. Principally, on two fold grounds, this order has been challenged-namely - (1) the applications for grant of a permanent stage carriage permits are required to be considered by the Regional Transport Authority and it is that authority who has to take a decision thereon and it is not permissible for the Secretary of such Regional Transport Authority to consider and decide such application and slice the order impugned shows that the application of the petitioner for grant of permanent stage carriage permits has been considered and decided upon by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, the order impugned is without jurisdiction ; and (2) the ground on which the application baa been rejected are not tenable, the learned Counsel, for the respondent, relying on Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1979, has submitted that since the petitioner has a statutory right of appeal against the order impugned, this writ petition should not be entertained. The learned Counsel, for the respondents, however, missed the text of Section 89 of the said Act it provides that being 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, a person may prefer an appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal Section 89 does not give any right of preferring an appeal against an order passed by the Secretary. Regional Transport Authority, for the sin pie reason that in the matter of grant or non grant, it in either the S.T.A. on the R.T.A. alone and not by any Individual Officer of such authority can decide the matter. the order impugned being not an order of the R. T A. but by its Secretary, the same is no order in terms of the provisions contained in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1979. If the same is claimed to be an order under the said Act, as ts being claimed by the respondents, the same is totally without jurisdiction.
(3.) That apart, two reasons have been given in the order impugned for rejecting the application of the petitioner for grant of permanent stage carriage permit. First being that the petitioner had once given, along with her application for grant of a temporary permit,a declaration mentioning that she will sever had claim permanent permit to ply her Bus on the said route and stop plying the Bus on the route as soon as Bus No. WGB 1399 will start playing on the routes; and second being that the prayer for issuing the permanent permit to the petitioner is dependent upon the owner of Bus No WGE-1359 failing to ply back the said Bus within a reasonable time.;