- (1.) THIS is appeal by Victory Public Hill Motor Transport Company (Private) Limited, Hoshiarpur against the Kartar Bus Service Limited, Jullundur and the Minister for Transport, Punjab Government, respectively impleaded as respondents Nos. 1 and 2. It is directed against the judgment of single Judge dated October 17, 1969 dismissing the writ petition filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution to quash the order of respondent No. 2 dated July 23, 1968.
(2.) FACTS giving rise to the appeal are as under:respondent No. 1 and the appellant carry on the business of passenger transport on some routes in the State of Punjab. The State Transport Commissioner, Punjab granted a regular permit to respondent No. 1 on September 20, 1966 for a period of three years on Hoshiarpur-Garshshankar-Nurpur route after complying with the procedure provided in Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter called the Act. Feeling aggrieved of the grant of permitt to respondent No. 1, the appellant preferred an appeal under Section 64 (f) of the Act to the Secretary to Government, Punjab, Transport Department. The appeal was rejected on the ground that the appellant did not file any objections under Section 57 of the Act and did not oppose the grant of permit, when the matter was pending with the Transport Commissioner. Being dissatisfied with the order of the appellate authority, the appellant filed a revision petition under S. 64 (h) of the Act. That revision petition was allowed by respondent No. 2, by order dated July 23, 1968. Respondent No. 1 challenged the validity of that order by filing writ petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution. That writ petition was allowed by the learned single Judge on the ground that the appellant having not opposed the grant of permit before the Transport Commissioner, no appeal could lie on his behalf under Section 64 (f) of the Act from his order and that the appeal by the appellant being incompetent and the Secretary having no power to interfere with the order of the Transport Commissioner in the appeal filed on behalf of the appellant, no revision was maintainable at the instance of the appellant and consequently the order of respondent No. 2 setting aside the order of the appellate authority is unwarranted and illegal.
(3.) SHRI N. K. Sodhi appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that the scope of Cls. (f) and (h) of Section 64, under which the appeal and the revision had been filed has been misunderstood. Clause (f) of S. 64 of the Act, under which appeal was filed, runs as follows: " 64. Any person. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (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, 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. ";