Back
1975 Supreme(Pat) 72
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA
B. D. Singh & Birendra Prasad Sinha, JJ.
BIJOY KUMAR BHAGAT - Petitioner
VERSUS
THE CHAIRMAN, STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BIHAR & OTHERS - Respondents
(C. W. J. C. No. 1993 of 1974)
Decided On : 7th March, 1975
Advocate Appeared:
Messrs Basudeva Prasad, Radha Mohan Prasad and Mrs. Renuka Sharma for the Petitioner; Messrs Saptami Jha, B. Pandey and Anil Kumar Sinha for the Respondents.
An appeal against the grant of a temporary permit under Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, becomes infructuous upon the expiry of the permit period, and the Appellate Tribunal has no jurisdiction to pass an effective order in such a case.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1939 - SECTION 62 - TEMPORARY PERMIT - APPEAL AGAINST GRANT OF TEMPORARY PERMIT - MAINTAINABILITY - EXPIRY OF PERMIT PERIOD - JURISDICTION OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL - WRIT PETITION - QUASHING OF APPELLATE ORDER.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, an experienced bus operator, was granted a temporary permit for a route by the Regional Transport Authority (RTA). Respondent, another bus operator, filed an appeal against the grant of the permit. The Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal and granted the permit to the Respondent. The Petitioner challenged the Appellate Tribunal's order by filing a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the appeal filed by the Respondent had become infructuous as the period of the temporary permit had expired before the Appellate Tribunal passed its order. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass an effective order substituting the Respondent in the permit.
Issues: 1. Whether an appeal against the grant of a temporary permit under Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, is maintainable after the expiry of the permit period? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction to pass an effective order substituting a different operator in the permit after the expiry of the permit period?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that an appeal against the grant of a temporary permit under Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, becomes infructuous upon the expiry of the permit period. This is because the Appellate Tribunal cannot pass an effective order in such a case, as the permit has already expired. 2. The Court held that the Appellate Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to pass an effective order substituting a different operator in the permit after the expiry of the permit period. This is because the Appellate Tribunal's jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the decision of the RTA, and it cannot grant a permit that is not in existence.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the Appellate Tribunal's order. It directed the RTA to consider the Respondent's claim for a fresh permit at the time of the next grant of permits for the route.
B. D. Singh, J.
This application by Bijoy Kumar Bhagat under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an ORDER :dated 28-11-1974 (Annexure 1) passed by the Chairman, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, (respondent no I), whereby he has allowed the appeal of Messrs Agrawal Transport (respondent no. 3). In the writ application, therefore, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of Annexure 1'. .
2. In ORDER :to appreciate the points involved in this application 1t will be necessary to state the facts briefly. In paragraph 2 of the application the petitioner has stated that he was an experienced bus operator and was carrying on his business of transport efficiently since 1970. In the other paragraphs of his application he stated that Chotanagpur Regional Transport Authority (Respondent 00.2) (for the sake of brevity hereinafter to be referred to as 'the R T A') invited applications for grant of temporary permit for four months in respect of the route Ranchi-Sessai- Bargaon- Sogara- River Koel (East Bank)-Gumla, in response to which a number of persons, including the petitioner and respondent no. 3, filed applications. On 16-8-1973 a meeting of R T A took place in which it was decided to grant temporary permit for the route in question to the petitioner. In pursuance thereto on 28-8-73, a letter was sent to the petitioner, intimating him of the fact of the grant of temporary permit in respect of the route in' question and calling upon him to produce the vehicle and necessary papers. It seems, the petitioner could not produce the aforesaid things within the prescribed time and, therefore, he requested for extef.1sion of time. It appears, he was twice granted extension of time for the said purpose. On 16-10-1973 the petitioner produced the vehicle and necessary papers. Thereafter he was allowed to operate the bus on the said route. The said temporary permit was valid tit four months from 19-10•73 when it was granted to him. Aggrieved with the said ORDER :respondent no. 3, in relation to the extension of time to the petitioner for producing vehicle, preferred revision no. 62/73, and against the final ORDER :granting temporary permit, it fi1ed appeal no 97/ 73. It may be stated here that one Basant Kumar Lall was also one of the applicants for grant of temporary permit for the aforesaid route, and since he was not granted the said permit, in preference to the petitioner, he also filed appeal no. 99/73 against the said ORDER :, by which the petitioner was granted temporary permit. On 28.11.74 the said revision and the two appeals were heard and disposed of by a common ORDER :.1 (Annexure 1) by respondent no. 1. I may mention here that in this case we are concerned with the impugned ORDER :relating to petitioner and respondent no. 3. The effective part of the ORDER :is to be found in paragraph 16, which is as follows :- .
"So far as T. A. 97/73 is concerned I shall ORDER :that the claim of the appellant in T. A. 97/73 is definitely superior to that of Bijoy Kumar Bhagat and all other persons who had appeared as applicants in response to the notification for grant of the temporary permit and as such I shall ORDER :that the temporary permit be granted to this appellant. The ORDER :of the Chotanagpur Regional Transport Authority dated 16.8.1973 is set aside and it is directed that the temporary permit so granted by this authority will henceforth cease to be effective. The appellant of 97/73 shall abide by all such terms and conditions which would be imposed on this appellant by the Chotanagpur Regional Transport Authority for running this route. Subject to what I have stated above T. A. 97/73 is allowed.
3. Being aggrieved by the said ORDER :, as mentioned earlier, the petitioner filed this application on 12.12.74, which was admitted on 23.12.74. Interim ORDER :staying the operation of the impugned ORDER :was also passed on that date.
4. Respondent no. 3 filed show cause on 4.1.75 supporting the impugned OR
