Patna High Court
Janta Motor Transport Co-Operative ... vs The Chairman, South Chotanagpur ... on 21 October, 1976
Equivalent citations: AIR1977PAT319, AIR 1977 PATNA 319
ORDER
1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner which is a registered Co-operative Society under the Bihar & Orissa Co-operative Societies Act, 1935 for quashing the orders contained in Annexures '5' and '6' and for a direction to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to grant permanent timing to it in respect of a permanent stage carriage for which permit for five years on Ranchi Murisemar via Kuru Tori, Latehar, Daltonganj, Pandwamore, Garhwa and Nagar was granted by the Chotanagpur Regional Transport Authority, Ranchi, at its meeting held on 23rd/24th February, 1972.
2. It appears that the petitioner, in order to ply the stage carriage proposed some timings and a provisional timing chart was issued to it by the Secretary, South Chotanagpur Regional Transport Authority, Ranchi (respondent No. 2) on 26th April, 1972 (vide Annexure '2'). Subsequently, however, that timing chart was modified and another provisional timing (vide Annexure '3') was issued by the same authority on 26th August, 1972. The timing allowed to the petitioner (vide Annexure '3') was, later on, set aside by the Chairman, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bihar. Patna on 1.6th May, 1973 and the provisional tuning chart (Annexure '2') was restored. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for change of the timing which was provisional and for fixing permanent timing. The Chairman, South Chotanagpur Regional Transport Authority, Ranchi (respondent No. 1), however, held that the permit of the operator is a permanent stage carriage permit and the timings of service running on a permanent permit cannot be changed during the currency of the same. According to him, it was possible only at the time of renewal of the permit. Accordingly, the prayer of petitioner for changing the timings and giving a permanent timing was not acceded to (vide Annexure '5').
3. The petitioner preferred an application in revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bihar, Patna, and the learned Chairman of the said Tribunal held that the petitioner had wrongly assumed that the time-table which had been initially fixed was provisional. He has, in his Impugned order relied upon the order passed by the Chairman of the South Chotanagpur Regional Transport Authority that the time-table that was fixed was permanent and not liable to change. He, therefore, dismissed the application in revision, (vide Annexure ('6').
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that both the Chairman of the South Chota-nagpur Regional Transport Authority, Ranchi (respondent No. 1) as well as the Chairman of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bihar, Patna (respondent No. 3) have committed an error of record in holding that the timing which was granted to the petitioner was a permanent one and not provisional. In that connection learned counsel has referred to Annexures '1', '2' and '3' from which It would be clear that under Annexure '2' a provisional timing was allowed to the petitioner on 26th April 1972. Annexure '2' begins with this:--
"Provisional timings of M/s. Janta Motor Transport Co-operative Society Ltd. for the route Ranch-Murisemar via Daltonganj."
Subsequently, another provisional timing was allowed under Annexure '3' which also reads as follows:--
"Provisional timing of M/s. Janta Motor Transport Co-operative Society Limited, for the route Ranchi-Muri-semar via Daltonganj,"
As already stated earlier, the timing under Annexure '3' granted to the petitioner was subsequently set aside by the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal on 16th May, 1973. So the petitioner was following the provisional timing as allowed under Annexure '2' and had applied for grant of a permanent timing in respect of his permanent stage carriage permit. Obviously, the Chairman of the South Chotanagpur Regional Transport Authority in his order (Annexure '5') and the Chairman of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in his order (Annexure '6') have made a mistake in treating the provisional timing as permanent timing and have committed an error in not acceding to the request made by the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a Bench decision of this Court in the case of Muneshwar Pandey v. The Chairman, Chotanagpur Regional Transport Authority, Ranchi (C. W. J. C No. 24 of 1975 (R) decided on, 19th April, 1976) : (reported in AIR 1977 Pat 211) a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure '7' to this application. In that case also, it appears, similar mistakes were committed and the provisional timings were treated as permanent timings and the mistake was rectified.
6. In our opinion, in view of what has been stated above, there cannot be any doubt that the impugned orders (Annexures '5' and '6') have got to be quashed and the authority concerned should be directed to give a permanent timing to the petitioner for the route aforesaid.
7. In the result, the application is allowed, the orders contained in Annexures '5' and '6' are hereby quashed and the authority concerned is directed to give a permanent timing to the petitioner for the aforesaid route. There shall be no order as to costs.