B. BHATTACHARYA, J.

( 1 ) BY this writ application, the writ petitioner, an existing permit holder, has prayed for direction upon the Secretary, Transport Department and the Secretary, State Transport Authority to dispose of the objection raised by the petitioner against issue of Stage Carriage Permits in the routes covering the area within the regions of Jalpaiguri and Darjeeling by the State Transport Authority.

( 2 ) MR. De, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State/respondent, has raised a preliminary objection as regards maintainability of the instant writ application on the ground of absence of locus standi of the petitioner, an existing permit holder, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mithilesh Garg v. Union of India and Anr. , reported in AIR 1992 SC 443. According to Mr. De, the petitioner, an existing permit holder, cannot dispute the grant of permit to other permit holder in the route even if the same is in contravention of the provisions contained in Motor Vehicles Act.

( 3 ) MR. Samanta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has opposed the aforesaid contention of Mr. De and has contended that the petitioner being an existing permit holder has right to oppose grant of illegal permit in the route. Mr. Samanta contends that the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mithilesh Garg (supra) cannot stand in the way of the petitioner in challenging permit granted by an authority having no jurisdiction. Mr. Samanta contends that in the concerned route only the Regional Transport Authorities, Darjeeling and Jalpaiguri, can grant such permit but State Transport Authority cannot grant any such permit unless a prior specific resolution is taken by the State Transport Authority to grant such permit notwithstanding existence of Regional Transport Authorities over the area in question. According to Mr. Samanta no such prior decision has been taken. Mr. Samanta, thus, submits that if the grant of permit by State Transport Authority is without jurisdiction, his client has a right to question such grant and for that reason his client made representation before the authority pointing out its want of authority.

( 4 ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, I am of the opinion that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mithilesh Garg (supra), an existing permit holder cannot dispute illegal grant of permit in the selfsame route to others in violation of the provision of the Act. I am, however, prepared to accept the contention of Mr. Samanta that an existing permit holder can challenge the grant of permit to others if such grant is made by an authority having no legal sanction. In such a case, such grant is to be treated as nullity and plying of vehicle on the basis of such a grant will amount to running of vehicle with no permit. An existing permit holder who has obtained permit from a competent authority can legitimately can complain before the authority that no person having obtained permit given by a competent authority can ply in the route.

( 5 ) THEREFORE, the locus standi of the present petitioner to dispute illegal grant of permit in favour of third parties is limited to this extent that where such permits are granted by an authority having no jurisdiction, he can challenge such illegal permit. But there is a difference between illegal grant of permit and a permit by an authority having inherent lack of jurisdiction. In case of the former nature, those are merely irregular but not a nullity whereas the descriptions of the second type are nullity.

( 6 ) ACCORDING to the provisions contained in sections 68 (3) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, State Transport Authority, if it thinks fit, can perform the duties of the Regional Transport Authority in respect of any route common to two or more regions and, thus, for the purpose of grant of a permit covering two regions, although, Regio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document