MEENAKSHI Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER MYSORE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On November 26, 1957, the Regional Transport Authority, South Kanara, invited applications under Section 57(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the grant of a permit for the operation of a stage carriage, on the route between Karkal and Udyavar in the district of South Kanara. The last date within which those applications had to be presented was March 22, 1958. A certain Gopalasetty who was the husband of the petitioner before us, and, respondents 3 and 6 in this writ petition were some of the applicants who presented applications foe the grant of a permit. By a resolution of April 25, 1958, the Regional Transport Authority, decided to grant the permit to respondent 6. Against that decision of the Regional Transport Authority, four Appeals were preferred to the State Transport Authority which had then jurisdiction to hear those appeals. Gopalasetty the husband of the petitioner, was not, however, one of the persons who preferred an appeal to the State Transport Authority. During the pendency of that appeal, Gopalasetty died on December 30, 1956, and, by an order made on June 24, 1959, the State Transport Authority, allowed the four appeals which had been preferred, and remanded the matter to the Regional Transport Authority for fresh disposal. On August 24, 1959, after the matter went back to the Regional Transport Authority, the Secretary of that Regional Transport Authority returned all the applications which had been presented by the various applications to them so that the applications may be re-presented after making certain rectifications therein. One of those persons to whom the Secretary sent back the applications in that way was the petitioner although that communication was sent, according to Mr. Rangaswamy the learned advocate for respondent 3 to a concern called the Manjunatha Motor Service which was the name and style under which Gopalasetty was operating his transport service. However that may be, on August 28, 1959, the petitioner re-presented the application presented by Gopalasetty along with another which she presented describing herself therein as "successor" of her husband. It appears that the other applicants to whom their applications had been similarly returned by the Secretary also re-presented their applications.

(2.) After these applications were received in that way by the Secretary, the Regional Transport Authority published those applications once again under the provisions of Section 57 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act for the reason that the publication which had been previously made was a defective publication. This publication was followed up by a resolution of the Regional Transport Authority on March 21, 1960, by which it decided to grant the permit to the petitioner. It is under this permit which was granted to her that the petitioner has been admittedly operating her stage carriage till now.

(3.) But, after the Regional Transport Authority resolved to grant the permit to the petitioner, six appeals were preferred to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal which had by then been invested with jurisdiction to hear appeals. One of them was an appeal preferred by respondent 3 in this writ petition. That appeal succeeded, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal having come to the conclusion that after the death of Gopalasetty, his application for the grant of a permit had abated, the petitioner not having the right to continue the proceedings relating to that application. The other ground on which the permit granted to the petitioner was set aside by the Tribunal was that the Regional Transport Authority had awarded more marks to the petitioner under column 10 of the broadsheet prescribed by the rules made by the State of Madras under Section 43(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act as in force in the South Kanara district than she deserved. The Tribunal next proceeded to grant the permit to respondent 3 who in its opinion should have been selected by the Regional Transport Authority as the permit holder.