Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This is a petition filed under Article 227, Constitution of India, praying that this Court should reverse an order made by the Commissioner of Burdwan dated 21-2-1950, by which he set aside an order of the Regional Transport Authority for Burdwan and cancelled a licence or permit which had been granted by that authority.

2. The petitioners had a permit for a route, running from Barakar through Asansol and Burdwan to Katwa. As this route covered a long distance, the petitioners surrendered the permit which they held and prayed that the route be split into two, namely, Barakar-Asansol-Burdwan and Burdwan-Katwa, and that separate permits should be granted for these two routes. It seems that the matter came before the Regional Transport Authority of Burdwan on 23-9-1949 and the application of the petitioners for splitting up the route and the granting of two permits was rejected. Later,, however, the authority reviewed its earlier decision and granted the petitioners permits for two omnibuses on each of the two routes. The application had been opposed by the opposite parties in this Court, namely, the Asansol Bus Association and the latter preferred an appeal to the Commissioner of Burdwan who was the appellate authority in these matters. The Commissioner came to the conclusion that the order made could not be justified and he accordingly set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority and rejected the application for splitting up the old route and the granting of two-permits in respect of the two portions into which the old route would be divided.

3. A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been preferred and it has been contended by Mr. Atul Gupta on behalf of the petitioners that the Commissioner of Burdwan in hearing this appeal was a tribunal within the meaning of that term as used in Article 227 of the Constitution. Further, he urged that the opposite parties to this petition, namely, the Asansol Bus Association had no right whatsoever to object to the application made by the petitioners to the Regional Transport Authority and further had no right to appeal to the Commissioner of Burdwan. Accordingly the Commissioner of Burdwan had no jurisdiction whatsoever to adjudicate on the matter and as, it is said, his order was without jurisdiction we should set it aside under the powers given to this Court by Article 227 of the Constitution.

15. Mr. Gupta's contention is that the opposite parties, the Asansol Bus Association, had no right whatsoever to object to the granting of a permit to the petitioners and further had no right to challenge the decision of the Regional Transport Authority granting the permits applied for. On behalf of the respondents it is contended that the Asansol Bus Association was clearly an association interested in the provision of road transport facilities in the region; and that being so they were entitled to object to the granting of permits to the petitioners and to appeal from the decision of the Authority granting such permits.

19. Mr. Atul Gupta then contended that this association was not an association interested in the provision of road transport facilities within the meaning of that phrase as used in Section 47 of the Act. He pointed out that the association merely consisted of a number of members and the individual members would have a right to object to the granting of permits because it could be said that each member was already providing transport facilities along or near the proposed route or routes. As individual members could object Mr. Gupta has contended that it could never have been the intention of the Legislature to allow an association to object on the same ground. The Legislature, however, has expressly provided that an association interested in the provision of road transport facilities has a power to objection and a right to appeal. Mr. Gupta, however, contends that an association composed of members financially interested in the provision of road transport facilities is not such an association as is contemplated in Section 47. Mr. Gupta would have us read this portion of Section 47 "as any association interested otherwise than financially in the provision of road transport facilities." But there is no reason whatsoever why we should read into the section words which are not there. The phrase used is couched in the widest terms, and I think it is utterly impossible to hold that the Asansol Bus Association consisting of a number of owners of omnibuses plying for hire in the district was not an association interested in the provision of road transport facilities. The members of this association earn their livelihood by providing transport facilities and the association would be vitally interested in the granting of permits to other persons. The granting of an additional permit would mean more competition, the risk of fare cutting and such like and it seems to me that if any persons or body could be said to be interested in the provision of road transport facilities this association was. The Legislature has contemplated in Section 47 objections being filed by individuals or by associations representing individuals vitally interested in the question of road transport facilities. That being so, we must hold that the Asansol Bus Association had a right to object to the grant of permits to the petitioners and they had a right to challenge the decision of the Regional Transport Authority before the Commissioner of Burdwan. The appeal, therefore, to the Commissioner of Burdwan was properly constituted and was preferred on behalf of an appellant entitled to appeal. The Commissioner, therefore, had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and, therefore, it cannot be said that his decision was without jurisdiction because no properly constituted appeal was before him. The appeal preferred by the opposite parties was an appeal which they were entitled to prefer and was an appeal which the Commissioner of Burdwan was entitled to and indeed bound to decide. That being so, Mr. Gupta's contention that the decision of the Commissioner was wholly without jurisdiction is without substance.