MADHYA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by the madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Bhopal, the prayer made is for the issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing a decision of the State Transport appellate Authority granting in appeal permit for Jabalpur--Maibar route to the respondent No. 2. Laxminarayan.

(2.) THE said respondent had applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur, for the grant of a permit in respect of Jabalpur--Rewa route. That application was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority on the ground that it was not competent to entertain it as the major portion of the route lay in Rewa region. Thereupon Laxminarayan appealed to the State Transport Appellate Authority contending that the, Regional Transport Authority should not have rejected his application outright but that it should have considered the question of the grant of a permit to him for the curtailed route, namely, from Jabalpur to Maihar. The petitioner opposed the grant of a permit for the curtailed route saying that the respondent No. 2 had never applied for a permit for the route and that neither the regional Transport Authority nor the Appellate Authority had any jurisdiction to grant a permit in respect of any route for which no application had ever been made. The Appellate Authority overruled this objection and taking the view that under Section 48 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, the Regional Transport Authority had the power to grant permit "in a curtailed form" and that it had also the power under Rule 50 (b) of the C. P. and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules to modify the terms of application for the grant of a permit, held that when the respondent No. 2 made a prayer for the grant of a permit for Jabalpur--Maihar route his application would be deemed to be one for that route and that as there was scope on the route the respondent was entitled to gel a permit for that route.

(3.) BEFORE us, Shri Dharmadhikari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Corporation, urged that the grant of a permit to the respondent-Laxminarayan for jabalpur Maihar route when he had only applied for grant of permit for Jabalpur--Rewa route was contrary to the express bar contained in the proviso to Section 48 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act; that under Section 48 (1) or under Rule 50 (b)neither the Regional Transport Authority nor the Appellate Authority could modify the application for the grant of a permit for Jabalpur--Rewa route so as to deem it as one for Jabalpur--Maihar route; and that as the Regional Transport Authority, jabalpur. had no jurisdiction to entertain the said respondent's application for the grant of permit for Jabalpur--Rewa route it could not be amended by the Appellate authority so as to confer jurisdiction on the Regional Transport Authority and thus on itself to entertain the application.