The jurisdiction of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, under Section 64(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act is co-extensive with that of the Regional Transport Authority.

1. - Petitioner, Champalal, has filed this writ petition, claiming, himself to be a bus vehicle opertator and has made the following prayer:

"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the writ petition may kindly be accepted and a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writs, order or direction which may be deemed proper in the circumstances of the case be kindly issued, setting aside and quashing the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur dated 5-3-79 to the extent of making direction to the R.T.A. that the period of 4 months allowed to the petitioner for engaging a higher model vehicle should not be extended, and order dated 3-7-79 passed by Secretery R.T.A, Bikaner."

2. The Order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, (hereinafter called to as 'the Tribunal'), dated the 5th March, 1979, contains the following important directions:

"When the appellant does not have a ready vehicle even today and the respondents had already obtained permits on the vehicles which were offered by them then the subsequent fact that the respondent No. 3 has taken permission to sell the vehicle and replace it with a higher model will not lower his position vis-a-vis the appellant. It is an admitted position that respondent No. 3 has not so far replaced his vehicles and is not plying on the route at all, but as the Secretary RTA has already granted him 4 months time to replace the vehicle, then in view of this permission his permit should not be cancelled. However, it is necessary to make a direction to the RTA that this period of 4 months allowed to him for engaging a higher model vehicle should not be extended."

3. In this appeal before the Tribunal, Loonaram was the appellant and Champalal was the respondent No. 3. The discussion, in the order dated the 5th March, 1979, goes to show that the appeal of Loonaram was rejected substantially on this ground and the direction, mentioned above, was one of main grounds for rejecting appeal of Loonaram. It is surprising that the petitioner, Champalal, now wants to take a somersault and get rid of this direction also. It is difficult to appreciate that when he has sold vehicle under an express understanding, that he would replace it within 4 months, why should he try to riggle out of it now.

4. Shri B.L. Maheshwari, who appeared for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal was not competent in an nppeal filed by Loonaram to impose such a restriction or fetter or limitations in respect of period given for the replacement to Champalal and it was beyond jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

5. I have given serious consideration to the above submission of Shri Maheshwari, but I find, myself, unable to appreciate it. The jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal is co-extensive with that of the Regional Transport Authority or any of its delegated authority. Once, the appeal is entertained, the entire matter is open before the Appellate Tribunal for a fresh consideration. The only rider can be that no adverse order should be passed against a party without hearing him.

6. This Court in Satyanarain v. S.T.A.T. 1980 WLN 571 observed as under:

"In the appeal under Section 64, Clause (1), Sub-clause (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act there are no fetters, no limitations, no restrictions and riders on the powers of the appellate authority while considering the appeal against the refusal to grant a non-temporary permit."

"I am of the view that the powers under Section 64(1) Sub-clause (a) the powers of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal are co-extensive with that of the Regional Transport Authority."

7. The above view finds full support by judgment of Full Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Surendra v. S.T.A. Authority, AIR 1970 Madhya Pradesh 230 whereby it has been held as under:

"Another question which was canvassed at the Bar, and for the decision of which this case was particularly referred to a Full Bench, is the power of remand of the State Transport Appellate Authority, a