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

1971 Supreme(Gau) 10

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
P.K.Goswami, M.C.Pathak, JJ.
Babu Singh -Appellant
Versus
Regional Transport Authority, Nowgong, Assam -Respondent
Civil Rule Nos. 735, 736, 741 to 743 of 1970
Decided On : 12-02-1971

The STAA must give reasons for setting aside the RTA's order and cannot rely on allegations that are not substantiated before it.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - STAGE CARRIAGE PERMIT - GRANT OF PERMIT - CONSIDERATIONS - APPELLATE AUTHORITY - POWERS - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was granted a stage carriage permit by the Regional Transport Authority (RTA), which was set aside by the State Transport Appellate Authority (STAA). The STAA found that the petitioner's brother had a permit for a vehicle in the same region and that the petitioner had not adduced any grounds to support his superior claims.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the STAA had erred in setting aside the RTA's order without giving reasons for preferring someone else in place of the petitioner. The court also held that the STAA had not violated the principles of natural justice by relying on allegations that were not substantiated before it, as the petitioner had the opportunity to controvert the allegations but failed to do so.

Issues: 1. Whether the STAA erred in setting aside the RTA's order without giving reasons for preferring someone else in place of the petitioner? 2. Whether the STAA violated the principles of natural justice by relying on allegations that were not substantiated before it?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The STAA has the power to set aside the RTA's order, but it must give reasons for doing so. In this case, the STAA did not give any reasons for preferring someone else in place of the petitioner, and therefore its order was quashed. 2. The STAA did not violate the principles of natural justice by relying on allegations that were not substantiated before it, as the petitioner had the opportunity to controvert the allegations but failed to do so.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petitioner's application and quashed the STAA's order. The court also dismissed the applications of the other petitioners.

GOSWAMI, C. J.:- This application under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against an order passed by the State Transport Appellate Authority setting aside a. stage carriage permit which had been granted to the petitioner by the Regional Transport Authority, Nowgong, on the Now-Ejong-Hojai-Lanka-Lumding route extended upto Howraghat. The Appellate Authority's order, so far as the petitioner is concerned, may be set out below:

It is found that the respondent Shri Babu Singh lives with his brother who has a permit for his vehicle No. ASN 793 for this region. Even though granting of per­mit to several members of the same family is not a legal bar, yet, when equally or more suitable candidates are available this res­pondent should concede to the claims of other suitable appellants. As such, the order granting permit to Shri Babu Singh is here­by set aside."

2. Before we deal with the conten­tions raised by the petitioner, we may refer to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act so far as are material to the present controversy. Section 47 provides for the proce­dure of Regional Transport Authority in con­sidering application for stage carriage per­mit. That section reads as follows:

"(1) A Regional Transport Authority shall, in considering an application for a stage carriage permit, have regard to the following matters, namely,-

(a) the interest of the public generally;

(b) the advantages to the public of the service to be provided, including the saving of time likely to be effected thereby and any convenience arising from journeys not being broken;

(c) the adequacy of other passenger transport services operating or likely to ope­rate in the near future, whether by road or other means, between the places to be serv­ed;

(d) the benefit to any particular locality or localities likely to be afforded by the ser­vice;

(e) the operation by the applicant of Other transport services including those in respect of which applications from him for permits are pending;

(f) the condition of the roads included in the proposed route or area;

and shall also take into consideration any representations made by persons already pro­viding passenger transport facilities by any means along or near the proposed route or area, or by any association representing per­sons interested in the provision of road transport faculties recognized in this behalf by the State Government, or by local autho­rity or police authority within whose jurisdic­tion any part of the proposed route or area lies:

Provided that other conditions being equal, an application for a stage carriage permit from a co-operative society register­ed or deemed to have been registered under any enactment in force for the time being shall, as far as may be, be given preference over applications from individual owners." Section 57 (2) provides when an application for a stage carriage permit may be made. Under sub-section (3) of the said section, there is provision for inspection of the applications and for publication of the same in the prescribed manner together with a notice of the date before which representa­tions in connection therewith may be submitted and also the time and place at which the application and any representa­tion received will be considered. Sub-sec­tion (4) provides that no representation in connection with an application referred to in sub-section (3) shall be considered by the Regional Transport Authority unless it is made in writing before the appointed date and unless a copy thereof is furnished simul­taneously to the applicant by the person making such representation. Under sub­section (5) when any such representation is made, the Regional Transport Authority shall dispose of the application at a pub­lic hearing at which the applicant and the person making the representation shall have an opportunity of being heard either in person or by a duly authorised representa­tive. Under sub-section (7) when a Regio­nal Transport Authority refuses an applica­tion for a permit of an





























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