Back
1993 Supreme(Pat) 429
HIGH COURT OF PATNA, (RANCHI BENCH)
S.B. Singh and Narayan Roy, JJ.
Bigau Ram
Ashok Kumar Singh
Md. Yashin - Petitioners
vs.
State of Bihar and others - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 29 of 1991 (R) with 2074 of 1990(R) and 939 of 1991 (R)
Decided On : 24.9.1993
For the petitioner: M/s K.N. Keshav & A.K. Pandey
For the respondent: M/s Tapan Sen, Sudhir Sahay and Shailesh Kumar.
The STA has the power to review its order granting permits if it comes to the conclusion that the order was obtained by fraud or suppression of material facts.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - PERMIT - CANCELLATION - FRAUD - POWER OF STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY - REVIEW OF ORDER - JURISDICTION - APPEAL - DELAY - CONDONATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were granted permits under the Motor Vehicles Act. The State Transport Authority (STA) stayed the issuance of permits alleging fraud. The petitioners challenged the STA's order, arguing that it was illegal and without jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the STA had the power to review its order granting permits if it came to the conclusion that the order was obtained by fraud or suppression of material facts. However, the court also held that the STA could not cancel a permit unless it was issued and the conditions precedent as laid down in section 86 of the M.V. Act were fulfilled.
Issues: 1. Whether the STA had the power to review its order granting permits? 2. Whether the STA could cancel a permit before it was issued? 3. Whether the STA had committed an illegality in failing to give the petitioners an opportunity to adduce evidence?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The STA has the power to review its order granting permits if it comes to the conclusion that the order was obtained by fraud or suppression of material facts. 2. The STA cannot cancel a permit before it is issued. 3. The STA committed an illegality in failing to give the petitioners an opportunity to adduce evidence.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the petitions with the following directions/observations: 1. The STA could entertain an appeal, if preferred by the writ petitioner, after condoning the delay in view of the fact that the matter was pending in this Court for a long time, so as to enable it to consider the entire materials and to pass an appropriate order. 2. The appellate authority would be entitled to consider all the contentions raised on behalf of the parties and would also be able to scrutinise all the records of the STA.
S.B. Sinha, J.
All these three writ applications with the consent of the parties were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. CWJC Nos. 2074 of 1990(R) and 29/91 (R) have been filed by Ashok Kumar Singh and Bigauram respectively, who were granted permits under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.
On 28.12.89, an order was passed directing grant of permanent permit to the petitioners of the aforementioned writ application on production of a registration certificate as also fitness certificate in relation to the buses which were to ply on the routes for which the said permits had been directed to be granted. However, before any permit could be issued in favour of the petitioners, an application was filed before the Chairman, State Transport Authority on an allegation that as chassis was delivered to the petitioner on 25.12.1989, it was impossible to manufacture the body within twenty-two days and thus a fraud appears to have been committed upon the State Transport Authority. Upon the said application, the Chairman stayed issue of permit to the petitioner. However, it was found that the chassis was available to the petitioner on 5.12.1989. But he came to the conclusion that the buses were not ready for the purpose of plying on the road. On 28.12.1989, he directed that the matter be placed for review by the State Transport Authority. According to the petitioner, the Chairman of the State Transport Authority in passing the said order ignored the statutory certificates granted by competent authorities after due inspection of his vehicle. It is further the contention of the petitioner that the Chairman of the Authority purported to have used his personal knowledge. It was further submitted that no prior notice was issued to the petitioner before arriving at the said conclusion.
3. The said order of the Chairman, State Transport Authority is contained in Annexure-2 to C.W.J.C. No. 2074 of 1990(R). The said writ application was filed on 15.10.1990 and CWJC No. 29 of 1991 (R) was filed on 4.1,1991. By order dated 10.12.1990 passed in CWJC No. 2074/90 (R), a Division Bench of this Court directed as follows :-
"Since the resolution of respondent no. 3 dated 28.12.1989 subsists, we find no reason why respondent no. 3 shall not issue permit in terms of its resolution as contained in Annexure-1. Respondent No. 3 shall issue permit to the petitioner within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
4. According to the petitioners, despite the same the State Transport Authority reviewed its earlier order as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application. By reasons of the impugned order as contained in Annexure-10 to the supplementary affidavit whereby order granting permit to the petitioner was cancelled, the provisional permit till decision of the writ application was directed to be issued. According to the petitioners, before the State Transport Authority, they have filed further documents namely the certificate of the body builders, receipt of advance paid to the builders in anticipation of receipt of chassis. The petitioner further requested for examination of the authorities who had issued the certificates upon inspection of the vehicles by filing an application as contained in Annexure-17, but the State Transport Authority, did not allow the petitioner to lead any evidence, and passed the impugned order as contained in Annexure-10 to this application.
5. It has been brought to the notice of this court that an appeal against the order dated 28.12.89 has been filed by Md. Yasin, who is the petitioner in CWJC No. 939/91. Petitioner Bigauram has further contended that as no permit had been issued pursuant to the order passed by the State Transport Authority, the question of cancellation thereof does not arise. It has been submitted that grant of temporary permit cannot be a bar for grant of permanent permit and, in fact, respondents of the said writ application have been g
