GANGA MOTOR SERVICE Vs. UNDER SECY TO GOVT OF BIHAR POLITICAL GENERAL AND TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Messrs Ganga Motor Service has filed this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the order dated the 4th/5th January, 1969 (Annexure '1') passed by the Chota Nagpur Regional Transport Authority, hereinafter- called 'the R. T. A.', the order of the Appeal Board dated the 4th April, 1969 (Annexure '2') and the order of the State Government dated the 9th August, 1969 (Annexure, '4') and for direction to the Transport authorities to consider only the case of the petitioner for granting permit for stage carriage.

(2.) The R. T. A. (respondent No. 2) advertised one vacancy for the route Chatra Hatia via Chandva and Ranchi (96 miles) and invited applications for the grant of a stage carriage permit. The petitioner along with 23 other persons applied for the grant of the permit The applications were duly published, and objections and representations, if any, were invited. The R. T. A., before hearing the applications, for grant of a stage carriage permit on the aforesaid route, considered the desirability of granting a stage carriage permit and came to the conclusion that there were adequate services on the route which fully catered to the existing need. It also held that routes should be created on some set principle keeping always in view the interest of the travelling public. It laid down certain principles as guide-line for creation of service. In the light of the above decision, the hearing of the applications for the said route was dropped. The extract of the proceeding of the meeting of R. T. A. is Annexure '1' to the application. Against the aforesaid order of the R. T. A., the petitioner filed an appeal under S. 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter called "the Act". The State Transport Appellate Authority (respondent No. 3), hereinafter called "the Appeal Board", heard the appeal. It was represented on behalf of the appellant before the Appeal Board that having advertised the vacancy the R. T. A. could not cancel the vacancy advertised. It was pointed out that the applications should have been considered on their merits. The Appeal Board held that the R. T. A. was certainly justified in initiating principles to be followed as far as future guidance is concerned; but it should not refuse to consider any application received in respect to an advertisement issued by the R. T. A. The Appeal Board, therefore, ordered that the R. T. A. must consider all the applications for the notified route and give permit accordingly. The appeal was allowed on the 4th April, 1969, and the case was remanded for action in the light of the observations recorded by the Appeal Board. A copy of the order is Annexure "2" to the application. The petitioner was not satisfied with the order passed by the Appeal Board. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application under Section 64-A of the Motor Vehicles (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1949 hereinafter called the 'Bihar Amendment Act". The application was filed mainly on the ground that since the other applicants did not file any appeal against the order of the R. T. A., therefore, the Appeal Board acted without jurisdiction in remanding their cases. The petitioner being the sole appellant before the Appeal Board claimed that the permit should have been granted to the petitioner, for the entire route in question. A copy of the application filed by the petitioner is Annexure '3' to the application. It is stated in the Writ application that the petitioner was not given any notice and personal hearing in respect of the application filed by him under Section 64-A of the Bihar Amendment Act; but was only informed by Memo No. A4-1017/69-7185 dated the 9th August 1969, signed by the Under Secy, to Government that his representation under Section 64-A of the Bihar Amendment Act had been reiected by the State Government. A copy of the letter is Annexure "4" to the Writ application.

(3.) It may be mentioned that at the time of the hearing of this application. Mr. Basudev Prasad, learned Counsel for the petitioner, did not challenge the validity of the order passed bv the R. T. A. (Annexure "I1'). The main argument put forward by learned Counsel is that the order of the Appeal Board directing the R. T. A. to consider all the applications for the grant of permit for the said notified route was ultra vires. It was urged by him that the Appeal Board should itself have decided and taken a decision on the point and granted permit to the petitioner as it had only filed the appeal before it against the order of the R. T. A. dropping the proceeding. The submission on behalf of the petitioner was therefore, that the Appeal Board was competent in the circumstances to only consider the case of the petitioner and order for grant of permit.