Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : M.C.JAIN
SANTOSH KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
R.T.A. - Respondent
CIV. WRIT PETITION 2720 Of 1983
Decided On : 11/20/1984
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 64A - REVISION - APPLICANT NOT IMPLEADED AS PARTY - PREJUDICE - RIGHT TO BE HEARD - APPLICANT AGGRIEVED PERSON - THIRD PROVISO TO SECTION 64A - MANDATORY - ORDER WITHOUT HEARING - INVALID - JURISDICTION OF STAT - LIMITING NUMBER OF STAGE CARRIAGES OR OPENING NEW ROUTE - AMENDMENT ACT - SECTION 3 - APPLICABILITY TO PENDING REVISION PETITIONS - RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION - NO VESTED RIGHT IN REVISION - NO RIGHT OF APPEAL, REVIEW OR REFERENCE - DISTINCTION BETWEEN APPEAL AND REVISION - NO RIGHT TO PREFER REVISION PETITIONS - AMENDMENT ACT HAS NO RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION - ONLY PROSPECTIVE OPERATION - POWERS OF STAT TO DECIDE PENDING REVISION PETITIONS NOT AFFECTED - EXISTING OPERATOR AGGRIEVED BY ORDER UNDER SECTION 47(3) - APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 64A MAINTAINABLE - MERITS OF ORDER OF STAT NOT TO BE EXAMINED IN WRIT PETITION - MATTER REMANDED TO STAT - WRIT PETITIONS ALLOWED.
Fact of the Case:
The RTA increased the scope of Nagaur, Sujangarh, Ladhu, Khiyala and Ladhu amalgamated route and fixed stage carriages to perform 8 return services. Again the R. T. A. increased the scope from 22:8 to 30:12 vide its resolution dated August 25, 1982. The RTA invited the applications under the vacancy of 8 stage carriage permits vide notification dated October 18, 1982 published in the Rajasthan Raj Patra Part VII, dated November 4, 1982. Against the resolution of the R. T. A. dated August 25, 1982 whereby the scope was increased, one of the existing operators, Shri Satya Narain son of Shri Mangharam r/o Sujangarh, Dist. Churu filed a revision petition No. 124/82 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short the STAT ). Shri Omprakash, the petitioner in writ petition No. 1990/83 applied for non-temporary stage carriage permit vide application dated September 1, 1982. Another Satya Narain son of Shri Madanlal, r/o Nagaur, the petitioner in writ petition No. 2120/83 applied on October 27, 1980 and Suresh Kumar, the petitioner in writ petition No. 1991/83 applied on December 2, 1982. One Smt. Champa Devi also applied under the old increased scope. All the four applications were published in the Rajasthan Raj Patra dated March 3, 1983 in pursuance of the notification dated February 18, 1983 and it was notified that the applications will be taken up for consideration in the meeting of the R. T. A. on April 27, 1983.
Finding of the Court:
The STAT failed to comply with the provision contained in the third proviso to S. 64a and the impugned order of the STAT dated July 25, 1983 deserves to be set aside.
Issues: 1. Whether the order of the STAT dated July 25, 1983 is invalid for non-compliance of the third proviso to Section 64A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939? 2. Whether the amendment to Section 64A by the Motor Vehicles (Raj. Amendment) Act, 1982 (Act No. 8 of 1982) has retrospective operation and affects the powers of the STAT to decide the pending revision petitions? 3. Whether an existing operator is an aggrieved person under Section 64A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and can file an application against the order of the RTA under Section 47(3)?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The third proviso to Section 64A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is mandatory and the STAT is duty-bound to give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to any person who is likely to be prejudiced by an order passed under Section 64A. Failure to comply with this provision renders the order invalid. 2. The amendment to Section 64A by the Motor Vehicles (Raj. Amendment) Act, 1982 (Act No. 8 of 1982) does not have retrospective operation and does not affect the powers of the STAT to decide the pending revision petitions. The amendment only applies to cases relating to limiting the number of stage carriages or opening of a new route under sub-section (3) of Section 47, which are filed after the coming into force of the Amendment Act. 3. An existing operator is an aggrieved person under Section 64A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and can file an application against the order of the RTA under Section 47(3).
Final Decision: The writ petitions are allowed. The order of the STAT dated July 25, 1983 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the STAT for fresh consideration in accordance with the observations made by the court.
M. C. JAIN, J.
( 1 ) THESE writ petitions raise some common questions of law, so, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this order.
( 2 ) I may state a few relevant facts giving rise to the above writ petitions.
( 3 ) THE Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur (for short the RTA) by its resolution dated March 9, 1976 revised the scope of Nagaur, Sujangarh, Ladhu, Khiyala and Ladhu amalgamated route and fixed stage carriages to perform 8 return services. Again the R. T. A. increased the scope from 22:8 to 30:12 vide its resolution dated August 25, 1982. The RTA invited the applications under the vacancy of 8 stage carriage permits vide notification dated October 18, 1982 published in the Rajasthan Raj Patra Part VII, dated November 4, 1982. Against the resolution of the R. T. A. dated August 25, 1982 whereby the scope was increased, one of the existing operators, Shri Satya Narain son of Shri Mangharam r/o Sujangarh, Dist. Churu filed a revision petition No. 124/82 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short the STAT ). Shri Omprakash, the petitioner in writ petition No. 1990/83 applied for non-temporary stage carriage permit vide application dated September 1, 1982. Another Satya Narain son of Shri Madanlal, r/o Nagaur, the petitioner in writ petition No. 2120/83 applied on October 27, 1980 and Suresh Kumar, the petitioner in writ petition No. 1991/83 applied on December 2, 1982. One Smt. Champa Devi also applied under the old increased scope. All the four applications were published in the Rajasthan Raj Patra dated March 3, 1983 in pursuance of the notification dated February 18, 1983 and it was notified that the applications will be taken up for consideration in the meeting of the R. T. A. on April 27, 1983.
( 4 ) SHRI Santosh Kumar, the petitioner in writ petition No. 2770/83 had also applied for non-temporary stage carriage permit on April 29,1983, which was published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated June 16, 1983. Dhaniram and Shree Niwas applied on April 26, 1983 and Rameshchandra applied on April 18, 1983. Their applications were also published along with the application of Shri Santosh Kumar in the aforesaid Gazette under the notification dated May 31,1983 and it was further notified that their applications will be taken up for consideration in the meeting of the RTA on July 29, 1983.
( 5 ) THE RTA by its resolution dated April 28, 1983 granted the four non-temporary stage carriage permits to the applicants, whose applications were published in the Rajasthan Raj Patra dated March 3,1983. The application of Smt. Champadevi was allowed and permit was ordered to be granted to her under the vacancy occurred under the old scope of 22 stage carriages and the other three applicants were granted permits under the vacancy of 8, so there remained five vacancies. The aforesaid four subsequent applications remained to be considered under the remaining vacancy of five and one of the applications was of Shri Santosh Kumar, the petitioner in writ petition No. 2720/83.
( 6 ) THE revision petition No. 124/82 of Shri Satyanarain s/o Mangharam filed against the resolution of the R. T. A. dated August 25, 1982 increasing the scope from 22:8 to 30:12 came up for hearing and the same was decided by the S. T. A. T. on July 25, 1983. The learned Member of the STAT partly allowed the revision petition and modified the resolution of the RTA dated August 25, 1982 to the effect that the revised scope of the aforesaid amalgamated route would be 22 permits and 12 services instead of the old scope of 22 permits and 8 services. It was further observed that the revision petition shall have no effect on the permit obtained by Smt. Champadevi (non-petitioner No. 2) before it. All these writ petitions are directed against the order of the STAT and the petitioners in all the four writ petitions have prayed that the resolution of the RTA dated August 25, 1982 may be restored and the order of the STAT reducing the
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
