BADRI NARAIN SINGH Vs. UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had a Stage Carriage permit to operate on the route Rohtas-Tilauthu-Sasaram-Kochas. The timing fixed for operation of his service was 8-30 a.m., i.e., the departure time of his bus from Rohtas was 8-30 a.m. He made an application to the South Bihar Regional Transport Authority, respondent No. 3, to change the timing. He said that the departure time 8-30 a.m. was not suitable to him. The earliest bus which started from Rohtas was at 6-40 a.m. The prayer of the petitioner was to fix a time earlier than that, give an election to the senior operators to start their bus at an earlier time, 5-50 a.m.; if any of them agreed to do so then the petitioner may be fitted in his timing, but if any of them did not agree to do so then he should be permitted to start his bus from Rohtas at 5-50 a.m. Some of the operators of this route did not agree to start their bus at 5-50 a.m. Some others who had a longer route were prepared to do so but since their doing so would have affected the service on the longer routes at different points, respondent No. 3 did not accede to their prayer. A copy of the order of respondent No. 3 dated 11-12-65 is Annexure 1 to the writ application. In that situation the petitioner's prayer was allowed and his timing was changed from 8-30 a.m. to 5-50 a.m. Respondent No. 4 who was one of the operators on this route, filed an application in revision under Section 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central). His revision has been allowed by the State Transport Authority by its order dated 16-10-69, a copy of which is Annexure 4 to the writ application. The petitioner went up in second revision before the Transport Minister of the Government of Bihar under Section 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act as it stands under the Bihar amendment. His revision has been dismissed by the State Government. Therefore, he has come up to this Court and has prayed that the order of the State Transport Authority contained in Annexure 4 should be called up and quashed by grant of a writ of certiorari.

(2.) Nobody has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 4 who was the only person interested in the matter. The hearing of this writ application was ex parte, but Mr. Amla Kant Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner, has fairly placed all that was necessary to be placed for our consideration in this case. He has urged two points, (1) that an appeal lay to the Appellate Authority as it stood then under Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Central) and hence respondent No. 4 could not go in revision direct to the State Transport Authority, and (2) that the order, Annexure 4, is erroneous in law on its face as it has not given any reason or sufficient reason to upset the order of the Regional Transport Authority.

(3.) Section 48 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') as it stood prior to its amendment by Central Act 100 of 1956, was couched in a different language. There under Clause (c) of Section 48 an express power was conferred in the Regional Transport Authority to regulate timings of arrival or departure of stage carriages, whether they belonged to a single or more owners. Clause (d) of the old section empowered the authority to attach to a stage carriage permit any prescribed condition or any one or more of the conditions enumerated in the various sub-clauses of Clause (d). Sub-clause (iii) of Clause (d) was: