- (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner in the present writ application is that his application for grant of road permit on the inter state route - Tata to Angul via Keonjhar, Jasipur, Tiring, Hata is not being considered by the respondent authority under the Motor Vehicles Act and his application is being treated as objector. He had also an additional grievance that the meeting convened by the authorities does not fulfill the coram as only Chairman was presiding over the meeting of the authority held on 26th June 2013 and the matter was adjourned to be taken up on 11th July 2013 for taking any decision in respect of grant of transport permit in the said route. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of learned Single Judge dated 9th September 2003 passed in W.P.(C) No. 3697/03 (Annexure -4) in support of his submission that under section 80(1) of the M.V. Act, 1988, a person has right to apply suo motu for grant of permit for a route at any time and the authorities are bound to consider it. He submits that the said judgement was challenged in Letters Patent Appeal being LPA No. 668/03. The learned Division Bench upheld the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge by which it was held that the authorities are empowered to suo motu consider the application for grant of permit at any time. It appears from perusal of the judgment relied upon by the petitioner that the said writ petitioner in WPC No. 3697/03 was aggrieved by the decision of the transport authority to take up all the applications even those which were not in accordance with the notice and decision to grant interstate stage carriage permit for the route in question which was ultimately granted to the private respondent. The petitioner in the said case appears to have the grievance that the application of the third respondent which was defective, should not have been considered for grant of state road permit. Learned Single Judge in those circumstances, observed that if any person has a right to apply suo motu application under section 80(1) of the M.V. Act, 1988 for grant of permit for a route, at any time, the authorities are bound to consider it. There cannot be a limitation to file such application or documents. Therefore, the date on which the Transport Authority considers the claim for grant of permit, it should be in accordance with law and if the applicant rectifies defect by that time, it was open to the Transport Authority to consider such application along with others. However, it was held that it is open to the Transport Authority to prescribe a guideline to give preference to the applicant over the others. Therefore, the writ petitioner in the said case being aggrieved against non -interference by learned Single Judge in the decision of the Transport Authority, had preferred Letters Patent Appeal which also upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
(3.) LEARNED AAG Mr. Ajit Kumar, appearing on behalf of the State, submits that the State Transport Authority is functioning as per the provisions of the Act and Rules. The Transport Secretary of the Transport Department is holding the post of Chairman of the Authority and he is holding the post of Transport Commissioner. The Joint Commissioner is also a Member of the said Transport Authority and therefore, the coram of the Authority have been fulfilled.;