PHANINDRA KUMAR BORA Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order for a temporary permit in favour of the 5th Respondent made by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Nowgong.

(2.) THE permit was only for four months expiring on 24th June, 1972. The petitioner, who claims to be the Secretary of the North West Transport Syndicate, a Transport Association, operating in the area, felt aggrieved by the issue of the temporary permit as, according to him, it has affected their revenue. The petitioner objects to the issue of the permit on the ground that the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, has no jurisdiction to grant temporary permit under Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act,' in absence of a delegation of power in that behalf by the Regional Transport Authority. He has taken a specific point in his application in that regard. Although the Regional Transport Authority is represented before us by Counsel, there is no affidavit to the contrary from that body. We will, therefore, assume that the Regional Transport Authority has not delegated its power of issuing temporary permit under Section 62 of the Act to its secretary. Mr. Bhuyan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, also submitted that Rule 72 (a), which is invoked in this case, as enabling the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority to grant temporary permit is in conflict with Section 44(5) of the Act. The learned Advocate -General, Assam, who is appearing to support the validity of the Rule, submits that the rule is not open to any objection. He further submits that it is not in conflict with any provisions of the Act nor with Section 44(5). This rule along with other rules has been made by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 68 of the Act. It is admitted by both sides that that section authorises the making of the rule in question. The point that arises for consideration is whether the rule is actually in conflict with Section 14(5). That section reads as follows:

(3.) IN the result, the application is allowed. We will, however, make no order as to costs.