Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
V.Ramaswami and Raj Kishore Prasad JJ.
Sarju Prasad Singh
Versus
South Bihar Regional Transport Authority
Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 225 of 1956 ;
Decided On : JULY 16, 1956
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 44(2) - TRANSPORT AUTHORITY - MEMBER WITH FINANCIAL INTEREST IN TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING - DISQUALIFICATION - BIAS - REAL LIKELIHOOD OF BIAS - ESTOPPEL - MALA FIDE DECISION - ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a stage carriage operator, challenged the orders of the South Bihar Regional Transport Authority (RTA) refusing to renew his permit. The RTA had rejected his application on the ground that the Government-owned Rajya Transport was operating in the area. The petitioner contended that the RTA's decision was illegal as the Rajya Transport's objection was time-barred, that one of the RTA members, the State Transport Commissioner, had a financial interest in the Rajya Transport and was therefore disqualified from sitting on the RTA, and that the decision was mala fide.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the RTA's decision was not illegal. The Rajya Transport's objection was not considered by the RTA as it was time-barred. The State Transport Commissioner did not have a financial interest in the Rajya Transport and there was no real likelihood of bias on his part. The decision was not mala fide. The petitioner was estopped from raising the objection of bias as he had not raised it before the RTA. The RTA's decision to adjourn the meeting was not improper.
Issues: 1. Whether the RTA's decision was illegal due to the Rajya Transport's time-barred objection? 2. Whether the State Transport Commissioner was disqualified from sitting on the RTA due to his financial interest in the Rajya Transport? 3. Whether the RTA's decision was mala fide? 4. Whether the petitioner was estopped from raising the objection of bias? 5. Whether the RTA's decision to adjourn the meeting was improper?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The RTA did not consider the Rajya Transport's objection as it was time-barred. Therefore, the RTA's decision was not based on the objection and was not illegal. 2. The State Transport Commissioner did not have a financial interest in the Rajya Transport. Even if he did, there was no real likelihood of bias on his part. Therefore, he was not disqualified from sitting on the RTA. 3. There was no evidence to show that the RTA's decision was mala fide. 4. The petitioner did not raise the objection of bias before the RTA. Therefore, he was estopped from raising it in court. 5. The RTA's decision to adjourn the meeting was not improper.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with costs.
Raj Kishore Prasad, J.
1. In this case, the High Court, on the application of the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has issued a rule on the opposite party to show cause why an appropriate writ should not be issued quashing the orders of the South Bihar Regional Transport Authority passed on the 11th October, 1955, and, on the 12th November, 1955, refusing to renew the permit of the petitioner to ply stage carriage services over the routes specified, in his affidavit. The Government Advocate has shown cause on behalf of the opposite party, but has not filed any counter-affidavit in the case.
2. The facts leading up to the present application may shortly be stated thus:
3. The petitioner had been carrying on the business of stage carriage services in the district of Gaya for a very long time. He had been granted stage carriage permits in the past, and, these permits had been renewed from time to time by the Regional Transport Authority. The petitioners last permit was to expire on the 31st December, 1953, and, therefore, he made an application, under Section 58(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act IV of 1939), hereinafter mentioned as "the Act", for renewal of his permit.
On this application, a notice, as required by Sec. 57(3) of the Act, was published in the Bihar Gazette of November 18, 1953, inviting objection, if any, to the applications of the petitioner, and, others, for renewal of the stage carriage permits, within one month from the date of publication of the notice in the Bihar Gazette, which were to be considered at the next meeting of the South Bihar Regional Authority, Patna, to be held after thirty days. No objection or representation was filed either by the Rajya Transport or any person within the specified time.
4. In accordance with the Government scheme of nationalisation of road transport, the State Government, which had started operating its buses in the name of Rajya Transport from the 26th January, 1953, in a portion of the district of Gaya on certain routes, also made an application for stage carriage permits over the routes for which the petitioner had also applied. On the application of the Rajya Transport, Government of Bihar, Patna, a notice was published in the Bihar Gazette of November 4, 1953, inviting objections and representations, if any, under Sec. 57(3) of the Act, within thirty days from the date of publication of the notification, as the applications for grant of permits in respect of service of stage carriages on the routes mentioned in the notification were to be considered at a meeting of the Bihar Regional Authority, Patna to be held after thirty days from the date of the publication of this notification.
5. On the 23rd February, 1954, the application of the petitioner, for renewal of his permit, was rejected, on the ground that Government proposed to run their own services in these areas, by the Regional Transport Authority, herein after mentioned as R. T. A." but it directed that temporary permits for these routes may be issued to the applicant till the nationalisation of the service.
6. Against the above order, the petitioner, along with several other persons, whose applications also for renewal of permits had. been rejected on similar grounds, moved this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for quashing those orders. These miscellaneous judicial cases were considered by a Division Bench of this Court presided over by Das, C. J., and Imam, J., and, their Lordships on the 26th April, 1955, allowed the applications of the petitioner and others, and quashed the orders (original or appellate) of the Transport Authorities, by which the application of the petitioner for renewal of his permit was rejected, and, the R. T. A. concerned was asked to reconsider the application of the petitioner and others and deal with them in accordance with law. The decision of their Lordships is reported in S. M. Islam V/s. State of Bihar 1955 BLJR 391: ((
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
