JANATA MOTOR TRANSPORT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks a writ of cartiorari for quashing an order of the Regional Transport Authority, rajput rejecting its application for the grant of: a permit on Raipnr-Rajnandgaon route, and of the State Transport Appellate Authority upholding in appeal the decision of the Regional Transport Authority. While rejecting the petitioner's application, the Regional Transport Authority allowed the application of the respondent No. 3, Durg Transport Co. , for the renewal of its permit in respect of the aforesaid route.

(2.) THE two grounds on which the renewal in favour of the respondent No. 3 was assailed before the Appellate Authority, and which have been repeated before us, are that on 17th to 19th July, 1962 when the Regional Transport Authority took the decision to renew the permit in favour of the respondent No. 3, Shri J. P. Mishra, who was functioning as the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, was not validly appointed as Regional Transport Authority for that region, and that the petitioner had no notice of the meetings of the Regional Transport Authority held on 17th. 18th and 19th July, 1962.

(3.) ON the question of the validity of the appointment of Shri Mishra as Regional transport Authority, Raipur, and of his authority to function in that capacity, the argument of Shri Tankha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, was that during the material time Shri Mishra functioned as Regional Transport Authority by virtue of Notification No. 25/ii-A (2), dated the 2nd June, 1962, and that it was ruled by this Court in Sudarshavi Transport Services (Private) Ltd. v. S. T. A. Authority, MP No. 376 of 1962, dated 16-2-1963 (MP), that this notification could not in any sense be regarded as one validly appointing Shri Mishra as the Regional transport Authority for Bilaspur region under Section 44 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the Act ). It was further said that the notification No. 242559/ ii-A (2), dated 31st May/1st June, 1962, which was published in the Gazette of 8th June, 1962, by which Shri Mishra was appointed as Regional Transport authority for Jabalpur, Bilaspur, Rewa and Raipur. did not supersede the earlier notification, namely, No. 25/ii-A (2), dated the 2nd June, 1962, and was not in conformity with Section 44 of the Act for the reasons that the notification made no mention of Section 44 and did not also say that Shri Mishra had been invested with the powers and functions of the Regional Transport Authority conferred by or under Chapter IV of the Act. In reply, Shri Sen, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3, did not rely on the notification, dated 2nd June, 1962. He sought to support the validity of the appointment of Shri Mishra as Regional transport Authority with reference to the notification published on 8th June, 1962, and said that even though it did not make a specific reference to Section 44 it must he taken as having been issued under that provision and was, therefore, a valid notification under Section 44, and that Section 44 did not require that a notification with regard to the appointment of a Regional Transport Authority should contain a specification as regards the exercise by the Authority of the powers and functions conferred by or under Chapter IV.