9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (7) TMI 111X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Transport Authority of Bolangir. In 1967, the State Transport Service came to operate a second bus on this route, but sometime after withdrew the service. As there was need for a second bus to cater to the travelling public on this route and no other operator was forthcoming, the petitioner was allowed to operate a second bus on this route from August 1969. The Regional Transport Authority while granting the permit imposed a condition that the permit would be alive until the State Transport Authority issues a permit for a second bus. The State Transport Authority opposite party No. 1 in due course invited applications (from intending pliers for this route. The petitioner, opposite party No. 3 and six others applied and on 28th of Octobe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... first. But we think it appropriate to defer consideration of the preliminary point because it has first to be ascertained as to whether there is force in the contention of the petitioner that the State Transport Authority had any statutory jurisdiction to deal with the matter. Upon a finding as to whether exercise of jurisdiction is vitiated totally for want of it, or there has been an irregular exercise of jurisdiction, the fate of the preliminary point would depend. 5. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act is relevant for the purpose. For convenience, Sub-sections (1) and (2) thereof which are material are extracted: (1) Every application for a permit shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2) which was introduced into the statute under amending Act 56 of 1969 with effect from 2nd March 1970, makes it clear that in respect of two or more regions lying in different States, the application has to be made to the States Transport Authority. Section 45 is intended to provide as to where the application for a permit has to be made. There is no scheme in the statute that the application has to be made before one authority and it has to be disposed of by another authority. We must assume, therefore, that the authority to which the application is made is to dispose of the application in accordance with the procedure laid down under the statute. 6. In this case, two areas covered by the route lay in two separate districts -- one por ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d subject to such directions and save as otherwise provided by or under this Act shall exercise and discharge throughout the State the following Dowers and functions, namely- ***** (b) to perform the duties of a Regional Transport Authority where there is no such Authority and if it thinks fit or if so required by a Regional Transport Authority, to perform those duties in respect of any route common to two or more regions; * * * * * It is stated that the State Transport Authority has thought it fit to perform the duties of the Regional Transport Authority in regard to the route in question. No material has been placed before us to show that the State Transport Authority had never decided to assume jurisdiction over the route in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatutory provision. It is not necessary for the disposal of this case to decide that aspect. Even in terms of Rule 52-A only the disposal of the application could be by the State Transport Authority as we have already stated where even the invitation of the application was made by that authority. As such even by application of Rule 52-A of the rules, the action of the State Transport Authority cannot be upheld. 9. On the aforesaid discussion, we would hold that the grant of the permit by the State Transport Authority was without jurisdiction. 10. The point that remains for consideration is whether the writ petition can be thrown out on the preliminary objection. The opposite parties rely on the principle that where a party has submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of Sheik Hussain and Sons v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1904 AP 36 while dealing with constitution of authority under the Motor Vehicles Act took the self-same view. We are led to hold, therefore, that the conduct of the petitioner could not confer jurisdiction on the State Transport Authority to deal with the matter. Again the plea of estoppel has its own limitations. We do not find any conduct of the petitioner which would really go to the extent of showing that he is personally estopped from approaching the Court. We would accordingly negative the preliminary objection. 11. On the basis of what we have already indicated, it would follow that the State Transport Authority had no jurisdiction to deal with the grant of a permit on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
