KANTA PROSAD SINGH AND ORS. Vs. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are ten applications presented under Article 226 of the Constitution. In all these cases, the Petitioners have applied for a writ of certiorari or any other writ of the like nature praying to quash the orders of the Regional Transport Authority, refusing to grant or renew permits to these Petitioners in respect of their Stage Carriages, and in consequence to quash also the orders of the Appellate Authority affirming those of the former Authority.

(2.) THE facts in most of these applications are common and that is why they were directed to be heard together. In nine of these petitions, one of the main allegations on which the applications are founded is that five of the members of the Regional Transport Authority were guilty of corrupt practices; they had thereby rendered them -selves incompetent to sit as members of that body to decide those cases for grant of permit to the various Applicants. In one of the cases, Civil Rule No. 14 of 1954 in which the Petitioner is represented by Mr. F.A. Ahmed, there is no such allegation. The other allegations which are also common to Civil Rule No. 14 of 1954 relate to the merits of the various orders. Their complaint on that score is that both the Regional Transport Authority and the Appellate Board took extraneous matters into consideration in passing their orders which were illegal and not warranted by the Motor Vehicles Act.

(3.) THE next question which arises is whether on merits, the decision could be justified. Here again, we would like to point out that we are not sitting to decide these cases as an appellate Court. We have only to see whether the Authorities concerned have acted in accordance with law; and according to the principles of natural justice; and that there was no want of jurisdiction in those bodies in making the orders now impugned. We cannot interfere with the merits of their orders or the reasons given by them in refusing to grant permits to these Petitioners.