M.Y. Eqbal, J. - (1.) WE have heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.
(2.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 10 is directed against the judgment dated 9th September, 2003 passed in WP (C) No. 3697 of 2003. The petitioner -appellant challenged the order dated 28.6.2003 and 17.7.2003 passed by the State Transport Authority, Jharkhand, whereby a decision was taken by the respondents to consider and decide all the applications for grant of Inter -State Carriage Permit. The applications were considered and finally permit was granted to respondent No. 3 - Pawan Kumar Kejriwal. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, assailed the impugned judgment on the ground, inter alia, that the learned Single Judge has not considered the fact that the Transport Authorities have not followed the terms of the advertisement inasmuch as even the defective applications were considered. Learned Counsel submitted that the transport authorities have no jurisdiction to relax the terms and conditions and requirements prescribed in the tender notice after initiation of process.
(3.) WE have considered the facts of the case and perused the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. In our view, we do not find any gross illegality or arbitrariness in the decision making process adopted by the transport authorities. The learned Single Judge rightly observed that the authorities are empowered to suo motu consider applications for grant of permit at any time. We do not find any error in the impugned judgment.;