ORDER
1. This application is directed against the order passed by the Minister of Transport, Bihar, upholding the order of the Appeal Board, dated the 28th October, 1965, annexure B. The order of the Transport Minister is annexure C The petitioner was an old permit holder for running stage carriages between Dumka and Sahibganj, being a distance of 96 miles. As the duration of the permit was to expire, he applied for renewal of the permit under the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939 before the Regional Transport Authority, Bhagalpur, opposite party No. 3. This route was, however, notified for being nationalised. Accordingly, in the petition filed by the petitioner, there were two alternative prayers (annexure A) stating that in the event of Dumka Sahibganj route being nationalised, the petitioner might be granted permit for the route Dumka to Asargani via Bhittia or Mihijam to Asargani via Sareth-Chandan Katoria etc.
2. Two objections were preferred, one, by opposite party No. 4 and the other by the Bihar State Rajya Transport Corporation. The Regional Transport Authority accordingly, went into the question. The objection of the Bihar State Rajya Transport Corporation was that Dumka-Sahebganj route was going to be nationalised and no permit could be granted to the petitioner in respect of that route. The petitioner has not come up against that order passed by the Regional Transport Authority. The objection of opposite party No. 4, however, was that the petitioner should have filed two independent applications with two chalans of Rs. 100/-each which was the fee required to be paid for the application for permit being entertainable by the Transport Authority. The prayer of the petitioner was accordingly rejected so far as the route to be nationalised was concerned. The petitioner thereafter confined his prayer to a permit being granted for the route Dumka to Asarganj via Bhittia.
3. The Regional Transport Authority allowed the prayer of the petitioner and granted him permit for running his buses on the route Deoghar to Asarganj, measuring a distance of 71 miles, to compensate him for the loss due to nationalisation of the Dumka-Sahebganj route. An appeal was preferred against that by opposite party No, 4 and the Appeal Board gave effect to the objection of opposite party No. 4 who, it may be stated is interested in a part of the route, because he is running his buses between Banka and Asarganj.
The Minister of Transport was moved by the petitioner against the order passed by the Appeal Board, but he too upheld the order of the Board. Hence the application to this Court for a writ for quashing the two orders passed against the petitioner.
4. Our attention has been drawn by learned Counsel to the circulars issued by the Government (annexures D, E and F) and Rule 173 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Act. The rule and the circulars in question refer to the refundability of the amount paid as fee to an applicant under certain circumstances. In our opinion, however, neither Rule 173 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Act nor the circulars in question have got any bearing on the point for decision before us. Mr. Septami Jha, appearing for the opposite party, has drawn our attention to R. 3 and Sections 45, 48 and 50 of the Act. In our opinion, however, it is not necessary to refer to these sections because they are also not relevant. The only question for consideration is that where an application is filed with a prayer for alternative route or routes, whether it is necessary for the applicant to pay the requisite fee of Rs. 100/- in respect of each one of his prayers. If that be so, and where alternative prayers are made, as many Rs. 100/- should be paid as there
are routes mentioned in the application alternatively for granting the permit.
Since these rules do not throw any light on this question the matter has to be decided on a consideration of the fact that the form supplied for making the application is the same, whether the application is for renewal of a permit or for grant of a new permit for any route. Mr. Jha endeavoured to draw some distinction between a case covered by an application for alternative routes and that where the prayer is for grant of permit for the first time. Where however, prayer is made for the renewal of a permit and then, alternatively, for grant of permit for routes for the first time, it is contended that when the prayer for renewal is refused, the amount of fee paid will be deemed to have been exhausted as having a relation only to the application for renewal of the permit. That is a view which commended itself to the Appeal Board as also to the Minister of Transport Mr. Ghoshal has, however, drawn our attention to the form of application and has stated that the form itself does not make any distinction between an application for renewal of a permit or grant of a permit for the first time for a new route altogether. That being so, it is clear that there is no substance in the contention raised by Mr. Septami Jha on behalf of opposite party No. 4. In the result, therefore, even if the prayer for renewal of a permit is accompanied by the prayer for grant of fresh permit, such an application cannot be put on a different footing from the one where the prayer is made alternatively for grant of permit for one route or another.
The objection on behalf of opposite party No. 4 is obviously highly technical. There is only one application and the rule provided that an application is to be accompanied by a fee of Rs. 100/-. There is no particular prohibition anywhere either in the Act or in the Rules that an application must contain only one definite prayer in regard to only one route and that where alternative prayer is made, either it should not be allowed or fresh fee of Rs. 100/- each has to be paid according to the number of alternative reliefs prayed for by the applicant. In the absence of any such prohibition, it must be held that whenever a single application is filed either for a permit for one route or containing an alternative prayer, it must be treated as one prayer and the payment of Rs. 100/- as fee must be accepted as valid to make the application entertainable by the Transport Authority. Our attention has been drawn by Mr. Ghoshal to another application. Since, however, that application was withdrawn, nothing turns upon the result of that case. In our opinion, therefore, it must be held that the order passed by
the Regional Transport Authority, Bhaealpur, was correct and the order passed by the Appeal Board and by the Minister of Transport. State of Bihar, setting aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority on the technical ground referred to above, cannot be sustained.
5. The application is accordingly allowed and the orders passed by the Appeal Board and the Transport Minister are quashed.