Patna High Court
Ramnihora Thakur vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. on 3 September, 1957
Equivalent citations: AIR1958PAT293, AIR 1958 PATNA 293
Author: V. Ramaswami
Bench: V. Ramaswami
JUDGMENT
1. In this case the petitioner Ramnibora Thakur has applied to the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, praying that the order of the Regional Transport Appellate Board, dated the 13th December, 1955, cancelling the permit granted to him is without jurisdiction and ultra vires and must be set aside.
2. It appears that the Regional Transport Authority had advertised for applications for grant of a permit for four months (subject to automatic renewal every four months), and on the 12th/13th January, 1955, the Regional Transport Authority considered all the applications and granted a permit to the petitioner Ramnihora Thakur for the Muzaffarpur to Bela via Sita-marhi route. Against this order opposite party No. 4, Ganga Motor Service, preferred an appeal to the Appellate Board of the State Transport Authority. On the 13th December, 1955, the appeal was allowed by the Appellate Board and the permit was ordered to be granted to opposite party No. 4 and further an order was made by the Appellate Board that the permit granted to the petitioner Ramnihora Thakur should be set aside.
3. The main ground in the present application is that the Appellate Board had no jurisdiction to cancel the permit granted to the peti-tioner because the appeal preferred by opposite party No. 4 was under Section 64 (a) and not under Section 64 (f) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is necessary to quote the relevant portion of Section 64. Section 64 (a) states:
"64. (a) Any person aggrieved by the refusal of the State Regional Transport Authority to grant a permit, or by any condition attached to a permit granted to him, may, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, appeal to the prescribed authority who shall give such person and the original authority an opportunity of being heard."
Section 64 (f) similarly states --
"64. (f) Any person being a local authority or police authority or an association which, or a person providing transport facilities who, having opposed the grant of a permit, is aggrieved by the grant thereof or by any condition attached thereto, may, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, appeal to the prescribed authority who shall give such person and the original authority an opportunity of being heard."
It is the case of the petitioner that opposite party No. 4 did not oppose the grant of the permit to the petitioner Ramnihora Thakur before the Regional Transport Authority and, therefore, the appeal preferred by opposite party No. 4 before the Appellate Board was not under Section 64(f) but under Section 64(a). It was contended on behalf of opposite party No. 4 in this case that there was a representation filed by opposite party No. 4 before the Regional Transport Authority and so the appeal preferred by opposite party No. 4 before the Appellate Board fell within the ambit of Section 64(f).
A certified copy of an application dated the 11th June, 1954, was produced before this Court by the Advocate General in the course of arguments. But this application was apparently preferred by opposite party No. 4 not in the proceedings for grant of the permit for four months (renewable after every four months) but in the proceedings for the extension of the temporary permit. The application was filed on the 12th of June, 1954, and it appears from paragraph 10 Of the application of the petitioner that on the Game date the Regional Transport Authority rejected the application of opposite party No. 4 and granted an extension of one month of the temporary permit.
An appeal was taken by opposite party No. 4 against the order of the Regional Transport Authority dated the 12th of June, 1954. The appeal was partly allowed on the 1st of November, 1954, as stated in paragraph 11 of the application of the petitioner. It is clear, therefore, that opposite party No. 4 could not be considered to be a person who had opposed the grant of the permit for four months (renewable automatically every four months) and, therefore, the appeal did not fall within the purview of Section 64 (f) of the Motor Vehicles Act but Section 64 (a) of that Act.
In this state of the facts we think that the Appellate Board had no authority in an appeal preferred by opposite party No. 4 under Section 64(a) to cancel the permit of the petitioner Ramnihora Thakur. The Appellate Board had no jurisdiction to pass such an order and it is necessary, in our opinion, that this portion of the order of the Appellate Board dated the 13th of December, 1955, should be cancelled. The view we have taken is supported by a decision of the Madras High Court in Nadar Transports, Tiruchirapalli v. State of Madras, AIR 1953 Mad 1 (A), a decision of the Patna High Court in Gobardhan Joshi v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1957 Pat 340 (B), and two decisions of the Rajasthan High Court in Dholpur Co-operative Transport and Multi purpose Union Ltd. v. Appellate Authority, Rajasthan AIR 1955 Raj 19 at page 26 (C), and J. G. Singh Transport, Shahpura v. State Transport Authority, AIR 1957 Raj 99 (D).
4. For these reasons we consider that this application should be allowed, and in exercise of our authority under Article 227 of the Constitution we direct that the portion of the order of the Appellate Board dated the 13th December, 1955, cancelling the order of the Regional Transport Authority granting the permit to the petitioner Ramnihora Thakur be set aside. We accordingly allow this application with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 50/- payable in equal shares by opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 on the one hand and opposite party No. 4 on the other.