Modi, J.—This is a writ application by Jairamdas under Arty. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, and has come before this Full Bench as it involves the determination of a question as to the true scope and meaning of sec. 64(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which has been differently answered by two bench decisions of this Court in M/s. Mohammad Jamil vs. The State Transport Authority (1) (civil writ petition No. 122 of 1955 decided on 7th September, 1955) and Sainiks Motors vs. The State Transport Authority 2) (civil writ petition No. 37 of 1955 decided on the 3rd October, 1955). The former decision is by a bench consisting of Bapna and Bhandari JJ. sitting at Jaipur and was given earlier and the other one was given by the Chief Justice and Dave J. sitting at Jodhpur, and this bench was obviously unaware of the earlier decision.

2. The facts of the present case may be shortly stated. The petitioner was granted two permits for plying two stage-carriages on the Pokaran— Phalsoond route by the State Transport Authority by its order dated the 11th June, 1953 By this Older two other permit-holders on this route were dislodged, one of which is opposite party No. 3 here and the other forwent his claim in favour of the petitioner. A condition was imposed on the petitioner by the State Transport Authority that he shall put on the route new buses of not earlier than 1950 Model within a period of two months. It may be mentioned before proceeding further that there are two routes between Pokaran and Phalsoond the longer route is via Sankda and Bhaisara and is 84 miles Jong, while the shorter route is via Ujlan and Bhaniyana, and covers a distance of 42 miles only. It may also be mentioned here that a road on the shorter route comes into existence some time later, and originally it was the longer route which was in force. The petitioners case is that the Regional Transport Authority revoked one of his permits as he was not able to put a bus of the required model on the shorter route, and granted a permit instead to Laxminarain Gandhi. It appears that Laxminarain Gandhi was being granted temporary permits by the Regional Transport Authority on the shorter route after the 11th June, 1953. The petitioner then represented to the Regional Transport Authority that the permit granted to him upto 31st December, 1955, fell short of the statutory period of three years and further that the intention of the State Transport Authority while it passed its order dated the 11th June, 1953, was that the petitioner should have been granted permit to ply his buses on the Ujlan Bhaniyana route which was shorter, instead of via Sankda and Bhaisara. Consequently, the Regional Transport Authority by its Resolution No. 98, dated the 16th March, 1956, held that the petitioner was rightly entitled to a permit for the shorter route, and not via Sankda and Bhaisara, and ordered the necessary correction in the permit, and further directed that the permit should have been granted for the full period of three years, and validated it accordingly from the date of the original order. Laxminarain felt aggrieved by this order, and preferred an appeal against it to the appellate tribunal of the State Transport Authority. The tribunal by its order dated the 18th July, 1956, partly allowed Laxminarains appeal, and while it held that the validation of the permit for the statutory period of three years was correct and should stand, it directed that the correction of the petitioners permit so as to be effect-tive via Ujlan and Bhaniyana should be disallowed. The petitioner has now come to this Court, and his main grievance is that the appellate tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal against the order of the Regional Transport Authority dated the 16th March, 1956, and prays, therefore, that the order of the tribunal dated the 18th July, 1956, was and is ultra vires and illegal and deserves to be quashed.

3. Sec. 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act (which I shall hereafter refer to as the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document