AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.P. Sen, J.—This is a special appeal directed against an order of D.P. Gupta, J., dated 6-10-1976 rejecting the writ petition filed by the appellant for setting aside the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajas-than, Jaipur dated 9-9-1976.
The learned Single Judge rightly declined to interfere with the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction u/s 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, set aside the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur dated 7-7-75, inasmuch as it had improperly revised the scope of permits on the route in question from 2 permits and 3 services to 3 permits and 4 services and the consequential stage carriage permit granted to the appellant on 2-1-1976 in pursuance thereof.
There was no error of jurisdiction on the part of the State Transport Appellate Authority. Nor did it act in breach of the rules of natural justice. u/s 64-A, the Appellate Authority had undoubtedly the power to interfere with the order of the Regional Transport Authority determining the scops of services op the route u/s 47(3). It could interfere with the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority fixing the limit u/s 47(3) is revisable by the State Transport Appellate Authority on an application to it u/s 64-A. see, Lakshmi Narain Agarwal Vs. State Transport Authority, U.P. and Another, and J.N. Wahal v. S.M. Jain (1969) 2 S.C.G. 833.
The question whether or not there was scope for increasing the services from 2 permits and 3 services to 3 permits and 4 services on the route in question was one for the transport authorities to determine. The Appellate Authority has on a consideration of the material on record, found that the Regional Transport Authority did not even apply its mind to the question of revision of scope on the route. That being so, it had the authority and jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Regional Transport Authority fixing the limit u/s 47(3), This Court cannot interfere with such an order in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
There is no merit in the contention that the Appellate Authority had no jurisdiction to set aside the stage carriage granted to the appellant. The resolution of the Regional Transport Authority increasing the scope u/s 47 (3) having been struck down, the stage carriage permit granted to the appellant on the route could have no valid existence and had to be set aside. In Girdhari v. Regional Transport Authority RLW 1970 465, Jagat Narain, J., while delivering the judgment of the Division Bench, observed:
If on a revision application u/s 65-A. The State Transport Authority is of the opinion that the route should not be opened then it is competent to it to cancel all the permits granted by the Regional Transport Authority oh the new route opened by it. Further in case the State Transport Authority is of the opinion that the limit fixed by the Regional Transport Authority is too high it can reduce the limit and pass an appropriate order.
The learned Single Judge was clearly bound by the decision of the Division Bench in Girdhari v. Regional transport Authority, Supra.
The special appeal is, therefore, rejected summarily.