SUDHIR KUMAR BARUA Vs. STATE TRANSPORT (APPELLATE) AUTHORITY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS rule arises' out of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE facts necessary for disposal of the case are that on the expiry of periodic contract carriage permits on the 31st March 1961, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority Dhubri Region, issued notification inviting applications for the grant of contract carriage permits. A number of persons applied for the grant of the permit. Opposite party No. 6 also applied for renewal of the. permit. The Regional Transport Authority after considering all the applications granted permits to opposite party Nos. 6 to 9 and rejected the application of the Petitioner. The Petitioner went up in appeal against the order granting permit to Opposite party Nos. 6 to 9. The appeal was heard by the State Transport (Appellate) Authority and the Appellate Authority affirmed the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority. Against that order a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution had been filed before this Court. This. Court held that there was no proper hearing of the application for the grant of permit by the Regional Transport Authority and the entire procedure followed by the Regional Transport Authority was illegal. The order granting permits to opposite party Nos. 6 to 9 thus in effect was set aside and the case sent back to the Regional Transport Authority, to act according, to law in considering the various applications for grant of permit.

(3.) AS we are of opinion that no relief can be granted to the Petitioner of mandamus directing the opposite party concerned to refrain from giving effect to the temporary permits granted inasmuch as the temporary permits are expiring today, it is not necessary to go into the other question to whether the petition should fail for want of impleading the other permit holders. But, at the same time, we do think that this by itself does not disentitle the Petitioner to a decision by this Court whether the order complained of was legal or not. There is no bar under Article 226 of the Constitution to consider the question of legality of the order and direct the opposite party concerned not to give effect to that order. The fact that the order has already spent itself is a valid ground for refusing such a mandamus. In the circumstances we decide to go into the question as to whether the order granting temporary permits is valid or not even though we do not propose to grant any relief to the Petitioner directing the Opposite party concerned not to give effect to the permits granted to the Opposite party No. 6 to 9.