1960 Supreme(Pat) 22

PATNA HIGH COURT
V.Ramaswami and Kanhaiya Singh JJ.
Abdul Majid
Versus
State Transport Appellate Authority
Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 918 of 1959 ; 932 of 1959 ; 965 of 1959 ; 978 of 1959 ; 986 of 1959 ; 987 of 1959 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 09, 1960

A judgment delivered by a tribunal that did not hear the parties and determine the questions between them is a nullity and must be annulled.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - Renewal of Permits - Constitution of Regional Transport Authority - Judicial Experience of Chairman - Delegation of Authority to Acting Chairman - Locus Standi of Corporation to Appeal - Validity of Judgment Delivered by Different Tribunal - Certiorari - Discretionary Remedy.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, holders of stage carriage permits, applied for renewal of their permits under Section 58(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Regional Transport Authority (RTA) published the applications in the Bihar Gazette, inviting objections. The Rajya Transport, Bihar filed objections on the ground that it was likely to operate a stage carriage service on the routes in question in the near future. Meanwhile, the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (Corporation) was established under the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950, and took over the powers and functions of the Rajya Transport. The Corporation prepared a scheme under Section 68C of the Act and published it in the Bihar Gazette. The RTA heard the petitioners and the Corporation and reserved judgment. On 26-9-1959, the RTA, differently constituted from the one that heard the case on 22-8-1959, allowed the renewal applications. The Corporation appealed to the State Transport Appellate Authority (Appellate Authority) under Section 64(f) of the Act, which allowed the appeals and set aside the renewal orders. The petitioners challenged the Appellate Authority's order, while the Corporation challenged the RTA's order.

Finding of the Court:

1. The Regional Authority which passed the final order on 26th September, 1959, was not validly constituted, inasmuch as the acting Chairman, Sri B. Prasad, had no judicial experience and was, therefore, not competent to act as Chairman. 2. Rule 42 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, which authorizes the Chairman to nominate a member to act as Chairman at a meeting, if he is himself unable to attend the meeting, does not necessarily conflict with Section 44(2) of the Act, which requires the Chairman to have judicial experience. 3. The Corporation had locus standi to prefer an appeal from the decision of the Regional Authority, as it had taken over the powers and functions of the Rajya Transport, which had filed objections to the renewal of the permits. 4. The judgment delivered by the Regional Authority on 26-9-1959, was a nullity and must be annulled, as it was delivered by a different tribunal without hearing the parties afresh. 5. The order of the Appellate Authority, although illegal, set aside another illegal decision, and therefore, the Court cannot interfere with it under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Issues: 1. Whether the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) was validly constituted on 26-9-1959, when it passed the order allowing the renewal of permits. 2. Whether the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation (Corporation) had locus standi to appeal against the RTA's order. 3. Whether the judgment delivered by the RTA on 26-9-1959, was valid, considering that it was delivered by a different tribunal without hearing the parties afresh. 4. Whether the Court can interfere with the order of the Appellate Authority, which set aside the RTA's order, even if it was illegal.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The requirement of judicial experience for the Chairman of the RTA under Section 44(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act is not inconsistent with the provision in Rule 42 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, which allows the Chairman to delegate his authority to an acting Chairman. 2. The Corporation, as the successor-in-interest of the Rajya Transport, had the right to appeal against the RTA's order under Section 64(f) of the Act. 3. A judgment delivered by a tribunal that did not hear the parties and determine the questions between them is a nullity and must be annulled. 4. The Court cannot interfere with an order of the Appellate Authority, even if it is illegal, if it sets aside another illegal decision and does not result in manifest injustice.

Final Decision: All the applications, both by the petitioners and the Corporation, were dismissed. The Court held that the petitioners were not entitled to any relief, and the Corporation's applications need not be allowed as the order it sought to set aside was already set aside by the Appellate Authority.