NITTOOR SREENIVASA RAU, J.

( 1 ) THE Petitioner is a holder of a permit to ply a State carriage service between Bangalore and Mandya via Kanakapura. Respondent 2 holds a permit for running a State carriage service between Mandya and Kanakapura. It is stated by the Petitioner that the State Transport Authority published a notification in the issue of the Mysore Gazette dated 5-11-1954 proposing a change of timings in regard to Petitioner's service and calling for representations or objections. Objections were heard and the State Transport Authority decided that there was no good , reason to revise the timings. Eespondent 2 preferred an appeal to Government (Respondent 1) against this decision. Respondent 1 has passed orders altering the timings for the running of the Petitioner's service. As a result of this alteration the petitioner's State carriage which was reaching Kanakapura at 1-30 P. M. and departing to Mandya at 1-40 P. M. was to leave kanakapura at 3-15 p. M. which meant a halt at Kanakapura for over an hour and a half. This order of Government is challenged on various grounds. But it appears to us that it is enough to consider only one of the grounds, viz. , that Government had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

( 2 ) SECTION 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for appeals. Clause (f) of Section 64 (1) which is the only provision that can apply to a case like the one on hand enables 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, to prefer an appeal against the graut or the attaching of the condition. The Petitioner's contention is that as Respondent 2 had not opposed the grant of a permit to the Petitioner and as such opposition was a condition precedent to the exercise of the right of appeal, no appeal on this matter could be entertained by Government. It will be noticed that though an appeal may be preferred not only against the grant of a permit but also in respect of any condition attached to a permit, the person preferring an appeal should have opposed the grant of the permit itself and it is not enough if his objection related to any condition relating to the permit in question. Even assuming that the timings assigned for the running of a State carriage service are to be regarded as a condition attached to the permit, it will be of no avail if a person who wishes to prefer an appeal in regared to such condition has not opposed the grant of a permit itself.

( 3 ) IT is not disputed in this case that Respondent 2 did not oppose the grant of a permit to the Petitioner. The right of appeal is a creature of Statute and it has to be brought within the clear terms of the provision for appeal. In this case, the only clause which can have any bearing on the matter is clearly inapplicable as the condition precedent did not exist. The order passed by Government in appeal which it could not entertain must be held to be without jurisdiction.

( 4 ) WE accordingly quash the order of Government bearing no. T. 7567/e. T. 5-55-284 dated the 12th January 1956. The Petitioner will get his costs from Respondents 1 and 2 (Advocate's fee Rs. 100 ).

--- *** ---

.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document