AKAHAYBAT PRASAD SINGH Vs. UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts for the disposal of this writ petition may be stated in a narrow compass.

(2.) An advertisement was published in the Bihar Gazette on 5-2-69 inviting applications for grant of one permanent stage carriage permit for the route Alouli-Khagaria-Bakhri to run the service two times up and down. The petitioner along with respondent No. 4 and others applied for the grant of the permit. The East Bihar Regional Transport Authority, respondent No. 2, considered the applications in their meeting held on 7-8-69 and granted permit to respondent No. 4. The application of the petitioner, however, was not considered as he failed to be present either personally or through any authorised agent before the Regional Transport Authority at the time when the applications for the grant of the permit were being considered. It was rejected on that ground alone. The order of the Regional Transport Authority dated 7-8-69 is Annexure 1 to the application. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the Regional Transport Authority. The Appeal Board dismissed the appeal by its order dated 22-1-70, (Annexure 2). The petitioner then filed a revision before the State Government under Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, as it stood under the Bihar amendment This application in revision was dismissed in limine by the State Government by order dated 7-4-70 (Annexure 3). The petitioner has obtained a rule against the respondents to show cause why the orders, Annexures 1, 2 and 3 be not called up and quashed.

(3.) Mr. Amlakant Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged the following points in support of this application (i) That the petitioner had offered to give the latest model bus of 1969 in accordance with a terra of the advertisement that preference would be given to one who would give the latest model bus, while respondent No. 4 has been granted permit by the Regional Transport Authority on his offering to give a bus of 1968 model; (ii) that respondent No. 4 was a minor at the time the permit was granted to him and, therefore, permit could not be or ought not to have been granted to him; (iii) that the orders of the Appeal Board and of the Transport Minister (Annexures 2 and 3 respectively) are not speaking orders and (iv) that the Regional Transport Authority could not dismiss the petitioner's application without considering it on merits merely because of his absence.