Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. K. DHAON
SARDAR HASAN SIDDIQUI - Appellant
Versus
S.T.A.TRIBUNAL - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 9467 Of 1982
Decided On : 09/05/1985
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - TRANSPORT AUTHORITIES - CONSTITUTION - EFFECT OF NEW CONSTITUTION - JURISDICTION - DE FACTO DOCTRINE - APPLICABILITY - PUBLICATION OF APPLICATIONS - DEFECTIVE PUBLICATION - EFFECT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, existing permit holders of three different routes, applied for the inclusion of portions of the other two routes in their existing permits. The Transport Authority rejected their applications, but the Appellate Tribunal remanded the matter for reconsideration. The Transport Authority then included the portion of the new route between Bhootpuri and Jaspur in the petitioners' permits. The respondents, existing operators of a route that overlapped a portion of the new route, challenged the Transport Authority's resolution by way of revision applications. The Appellate Tribunal set aside the resolution and remanded the matter for reconsideration by a duly constituted authority.
Finding of the Court:
The Appellate Tribunal's order was upheld, except with the modification that the petitioners were not required to make a formal application for the modification of the route mentioned in their applications under S. 57 (8) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
Issues: 1. Whether the Transport Authority's resolution including the portion of the new route in the petitioners' permits was valid, given that the Transport Authority was reconstituted after the applications were made and before the resolution was passed? 2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in directing the petitioners to make a formal application for the modification of the route? 3. Whether the publication of the applications made by some of the petitioners was defective?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Transport Authority as constituted by the notification dated 29th July, 1981 lost its legal existence and stood obliterated as soon as the notification dated 14th October, 1981, became effective. Therefore, the members of the Transport Authority as appointed by the notification dated 29th July, 1981, and particularly the Regional Transport Officer, Bareilly, ceased to hold any office under the said notification. If they exercised any power or function under that notification, they were acting as mere intruders or usurpers. 2. The Appellate Tribunal had, on 28th March 1979, and 20th July, 1979, while passing the order of remand, given a direction to the Transport Authority to consider the applications of the petitioners and others for the inclusion of the portion of the new route between Bhootpuri to Jaspur in their respective permits. This order became final. The Transport Authority was bound by this order and so were the parties. In view of this direction, the question of the petitioners making a formal application for the modification of the route mentioned in their applications under S. 57 (8) of the Act had no relevance. 3. The publication of the applications made by some of the petitioners was defective. Two notifications were issued. In the first notification the Transport Authority had fixed a time limit of 15 days for filing of objections. The second notification, which was issued in the nature of a corrigendum and which filed in the lacuna in the earlier notification, was admittedly issued long after the expiry of period of 15 days. This notification did not call upon any one to file objections. Under the circumstances, the Appellate Tribunal was perfectly justified in taking the view that the intending objectors were deprived of a statutory right to prefer objections.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, but there was no order as to costs.
( 1 ) THE petitioners have invoked Art. 226 of the Constitution and have challenged the legality of an order dated 18th May 1982, passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U. P. , Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Tribunal) setting aside a resolution dated 16th October. 1981, passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Moradabad (hereinafter referred to as the Transport Authority) including a portion of an independent route in their existing permits for stage carriages and remanding the matter for reconsideration by a duly constituted authority.
( 2 ) THE petitioners were existing permit-holders of one of the three routes which were Nagma-Kalagarh-via-Afzalgarh (hereinafter referred to as route No. (1); Nagina-Jaspur-via-Afzalgarh (hereinafter referred to as route No. 2), and Kashipur-Kalagarh-via-Jaspur (hereinafter referred to as route No. 3 ). Petitioners Nos. 1 to 8 (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners 1st set) the existing permit-holders of route No. 1 made applications under S. 57 (8) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the inclusion of routes Nos. 2 and 3 in their existing permits. The petitioners Nos. 9 to 20 (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners IInd set) the existing permit-holders of route No. 3 made similar applications for the inclusion of routes Nos 1 and 2 in their existing permits and the existing permit-holders of route No. 2 made similar application for the inclusion of routes Nos 1 and 3 in their respective permits. In addition, all of them desired inclusion of an independent route from Bhootpuri to Kashipur via Swawala and Jaspur. These applications were rejected by the Transport Authority by its resolution dated 29th August, 1978, the unsuccessful applicants preferred separate revision applications and these were disposed of by the Appellate Tribunal in two sets by orders dated 28th March, 1979 and 20th July, 1979. The Appellate Tribunal maintained the resolution of the Transport Authority except with regard to the inclusion of the new route aforementioned. However, even with respect to the new route as claimed by the petitioners, the Appellate Tribunal gave a direction that the applications of the petitioners should be considered only for the portion between Bhootpuri to Jaspur. With this direction the matter was remanded to the Transport Authority. In the remanded proceedings the Transport Authority accepted the applications of the petitioners and included the portion between Bhootpuri and Jaspur in their respective permits by its resolution dated 16th October, 1981 referred to above. This resolution was challenged by the respondents Nos. 5 and 6, the existing operators of a route which overlapped a portion between Bhootpuri and Jaspur by means of three separate revision applications. The Appellate Tribunal disposed of the three revision applications by the impugned order. It is to be noted that the existing permit-holders of route No. 2 have not come up to this Court and it appears that they have acquiesced into the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal.
( 3 ) THREE reasons have been assigned by the Appellate Tribunal for interfering with the resolution of the Transport Authority They are : (1) The proceedings of 16th October, 1981, of the Transport Authority were not valid as one Sri Janardan Prasad, the Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Bareilly, one of the 4 members of the Transport Authority, participated in the same without any authority of law; (2) The Transport Authority acted without jurisdiction in including a portion of the route between Bhootpuri and Jaspur in the permits of the petitioners and others without their making any application for the modification of the route, as originally prayed for namely, Bhootpuri to Kashipur-via-Jaspur, and (3) The publication of the applications of the petitioners IInd set for the inclusion of the new route was defective in so far as the notification did not pe
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
