The Chairman, S. T. A. cannot recall/re-consider an order passed by the Secretary, S. T. A.

A. PASAYAT, J.

( 1 ) SOME cases have no end to their litigative battles and the present case, as it appears, is one such case. Right from December, 1993 a dispute relating to fixation of timings and change of alignment is continuing. The unabated impugned order dated 10-2-1998 as at Annexure-13 has provided considerable fuel to the battle fire. Without tracing the litigative history in detail, it would suffice to take note of the actions taken and the orders passed by the opposite parties which form subject-matter of dispute in the present case.

( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner in essence is that on 10-12-1997 the Secretary of the State Transport Authority (shortly called 'the S. T. A. ') passed a reasoned order directing inter-change of timings between the petitioner and opposite party No. 3 by giving the latter preference and a stipulation that the petitioner will not have any stoppage at the F. C. I. site. The timings and the route have been indicated in the temporary permit issued under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act') and the Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules, 1993 (in short 'the Rules' ). On 18-12-1997 an application was filed by opposite party No. 3 before the Chairman, S. T. A. for re-hearing of the objection dated 1-12-1997 filed by him before the Secretary, S. T. A. and for recalling the order dated 10-12-1997 passed by the Secretary and to change the timings of the petitioner and also the alignment of his existing route. Petitioner filed objection to the maintainability of the application on the ground that the Chairman had no power to entertain the application and/or the prayer made.

( 3 ) BY the impugned order dated 10-2-1998 the Chairman, inter alia, passed the following order:-"be that as it may, without interfering with the order dt. 10-12-97 passed by the Secretary, S. T. A. in M. V. Misc. Case No. 351/97, I hereby order that the Opp. Party shall make stoppages at Samal and NTPC after Talcher for the interest and convenience of the travelling public. Accordingly kilometers covered by the vehicle of Opp. Party be calculated and timings of the petitioner is restored to 14. 20 PM and that of Opp. party at 14. 00 P. M. from Cuttack. 4. As regards timings, both the parties should ply their vehicles as per Central timings as supra in para-3 approved by this authority as any change therein would cause serious regional imbalance between the sectoral operators. "

( 4 ) SHRI S. C. Parija, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Chairman took note of a decision of this Court wherein it was observed that the Chairman, S. T. A. , cannot vary an order passed by the Secretary, S. T. A. Therefore, while observing that the application was not to be entertained, he should not have given any further direction which had resulted in the change of timings and/or alignment. Shri D. B. Das, learned counsel for opposite party No. 3, submitted that the order passed by the Secretary, S. T. A. was not factually correct, because there was never any concession and the said authority proceeded as if there was a concession made by opposite party No. 3.

( 5 ) IN the present writ petition the short question that falls for determination is whether the Chairman can recall/re-consider an order passed by the Secretary, S. T. A. For resolution of the controversy, reference to few provisions of the Act and the Rules is necessary. Section 87 of the Act makes provision for grant of temporary permit to be effective for a period not execeeding four months for conveyance of passengers on special occasions or for the purpose of a seasonal business or to meet a particular temporary need. In granting such a permit the authorities are not required to follow the procedure laid down in Section 80 of the Act. Section 89 (1) (a) provides that any person aggrieved by the refusal of the State or a Regional Transport Authority to grant a permit may prefer appeal to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal constituted under sub-section (2