SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1959 Supreme(Pat) 28

PATNA HIGH COURT
V.Ramaswami and R.K.Choudhary JJ.
Phulchand Ram
Versus
State Of Bihar
Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 1 of 1958 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 05, 1959

A person who has not made an application for a permanent permit on the present occasion and whose previous application has already been disposed of, has no locus standi to prefer an appeal to the State Transport Authority against the order of the Regional Transport Authority granting a permit to another person.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SEC. 57(3), 64 - PERMANENT PERMIT - APPLICATION - ADVERTISEMENT - APPEAL - LOCUS STANDI - A person who has not made an application for a permanent permit on the present occasion and whose previous application has already been disposed of, has no locus standi to prefer an appeal to the State Transport Authority against the order of the Regional Transport Authority granting a permit to another person.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Phulchand Ram, applied for a permanent permit for a bus service on the Gonda Pirpainti route after the State Government decided not to nationalize the route. Jaiswal, who had applied for a permanent permit in 1953, objected to the grant of a permit to the petitioner, claiming that his application was still pending. The Regional Transport Authority granted a permit to the petitioner, but the State Transport Authority set aside the order and directed the Regional Transport Authority to consider Jaiswal's application along with the petitioner's application.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that Jaiswal's application for a permanent permit could not be treated as existing as it had already been disposed of when the Regional Transport Authority granted a temporary permit to another person. The court also held that Jaiswal had no locus standi to prefer an appeal to the State Transport Authority against the order of the Regional Transport Authority granting a permit to the petitioner as he was not an applicant for a permit on the present occasion.

Issues: 1. Whether Jaiswal's application for a permanent permit was still pending and could be considered for the present permanent vacancy. 2. Whether the petitioner could legally be an applicant for a permanent permit if he did not make any application for the same before the last date for making an application for a permit against a permanent vacancy.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. An application for a permanent permit must be advertised in the Gazette within a reasonable time from the date of the filing of the application. 2. A person who has not made an application for a permanent permit on the present occasion and whose previous application has already been disposed of, has no locus standi to prefer an appeal to the State Transport Authority against the order of the Regional Transport Authority granting a permit to another person.

Final Decision: The court quashed the order of the State Transport Authority setting aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority granting a permit to the petitioner.

Judgment

R.K.Choudhary, J.

1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The facts leading to the presentation of this application, stated briefly, are these; The East Bihar Regional Transport Authority, opposite party No. 3, advertised a permanent vacancy for a permanent bus service on the Gonda Pirpainti route and invited applications till 30-5-1953. It appears that within that period Jagannath Prasad Jaiswal, opposite party No. 4, hereinafter to be referred to as Jaiswal, and one Srikant Dube, made applications for permit for the same. Subsequently, the State Government contemplated nationalisation of bus transport and issued a circular stopping the grant of permanent permit for any route.

On 18-12-1953, however the Regional Transport Authority, in order to meet public need advertised the above route for grant of a temporary permit renewable after every four months. The petitioner, Phulchand Ram, one Roshan Mistri and twelve other persons made applications for the grant of a temporary permit for the above route. Jaiswal and Srikant Dube did not make any fresh application on this occasion, but their previous applications were also considered along with the fourteen applications made for a temporary permit by the Regional Transport Authority on 30-12-1953. It appears that the application of Srikant Dube was rejected in limine as it was supposed to have been filed beyond the prescribed time.

The cases of the other fifteen applicants were considered on merit and permit was granted to Roshan Mistri on that date. Jaiswal, Srikant Dube and the petitioner Phulchand Ram preferred separate appeals against the grant of permit, but the appeals preferred by Jaiswal and the petitioner were dismissed as being without merit. The appeal filed by Srikant Dube, however, was allowed as, in the opinion of the appellate authority, his application had been filed within the prescribed period. The case was, therefore, remanded to the Regional Transport Authority for a fresh decision with a direction that the fourteen applications for temporary permit and the two applications of Jaiswal and Srikant Dube for the grant of a permanent permit may be considered for the grant of a temporary permit.

On 28-8-1954, the Regional Transport Authority after considering these sixteen applications granted permit to Roshan Mistri. Jaiswal, Srikant Dube and the petitioner again filed separate appeals against the order of the Regional Transport Authority dated 28-8-1954 granting permit to Roshan Mistri, which were disposed of on 11-1-1956, and the order of the Regional Transport authority was modified to the extent that certain conditions were imposed to the grant of the permit to Roshan Mistri.

Those conditions, however could not be carried out by Roshan Mistri and, therefore, the permit infavour of Roshan Mistri was cancelled and a temporary permit was granted to the petitioner on 28-2-1956. Towards the end of 1956 the State Government decided not to nationalise the above route and ordered for issue of permanent permit, and instructions were sent to the Regional Transport Authority to discontinue the practice of granting temporary permits and to take steps for permanent permits. Accordingly the petitioner filed an application in the prescribed form and with the requisite fee for making his temporary permit permanent which was advertised in the usual manner.

An objection was raised by Jaiswal to the grant of a permit to the petitioner and it was stated that his petition filed in May, 1953 against the permanent vacancy was still pending which ought to be considered for the present permanent vacancy. The above objection was overruled by the Regional Transport Authority who granted a permanent permit to thd petitioner. Jaiswal preferred an appeal before the State Transport Authority who, on 1-11-1957, set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority granting, the permit to the petitioner and directed that the Regional Transport Authori













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top