ORDER
1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing an order dated the 11th September, 1979 (Annexure ‘2’), of the Chairman, North Bihar Regional Transport Authority (Respondent No. 1), and the temporary stage carriage permit, issued in pursuance thereof, dated the 15th November, 1979 (Annexure ‘3’).
2. On the 10th August, 1979, the Respondent No. 2 filed an application for grant of a temporary stage carriage permit for a period of four months for the route Muzaffarpur to Lalganj, via Saraiya, Ambara, Rewaghat, Mansurpur and Daudnagar. On the 22nd August, 1979, the Secretary of the North Bihar Regional Transport Authority, in his notes, recommended for the grant of the permit. On the 11th September, 1979, the Chairman of the Authority only put his signature and, thereafter the impugned permit (Annexure ‘3’) was issued on the 15th November, 1979.
3. Mr. Amla Kanta Choudhuri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has urged that the grant of the permit does not conform to Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act at all, as no reason as to why the temporary permit was required to be granted is mentioned in the order. Learned counsel has also submitted that the Chairman has simply signed the notes of the Secretary, even without saying whether he approved or disapproved of the notes. The order, therefore, is apparently bad and cannot be sustained. Learned counsel has further submitted that the order does not mention the number of trips to be plied on this temporary permit on the route in question, on a large portion of which
the petitioner plies his stage carriage, on the basis of a permanent permit for the route Muzaffarpur to Rewaghat. Thus the grant of the impugned permit unnecessarily interferes with the other operators on the route.
4. Mr. K.N. Keshava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2, has submitted that the said respondent had earlier a permanent permit for the route in question the renewal of which was wrongly rejected by an order dated the 18th October, 1978 (Annexure ‘A’ to the counter-affidavit), on the ground that 56 kilometres out of that route was nationalised, that is to say, beyond the permissible limit, whereas renewal to other operators was allowed. Learned counsel has submitted that it was because of the obvious mistake committed by the Authority that the Chairman has granted the temporary permit, which was supported by the local Member of the Legislative Assembly and other people of the locality in view of the public need of the service, as there was no stage carriage service available to the people, after the refusal of the renewal of the stage carriage permit of respondent No. 2, which was very convenient for the people for attending courts, etc. Mr. Keshava has also submitted that respondent No. 2 has filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal against the order of refusal of his permanent stage carriage permit, which is likely to be decided soon.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the order for grant of the temporary stage carriage permit (Annexure ‘2’) suffers from the lacuna pointed out by Mr. Amla Kanta Choudhuri. The Secretary, in his notes, has not pointed out as to under which clause of Section 62 of the Act the grant of temporary stage carriage permit was sought for or was justified, though some relevant facts have been mentioned in this regard. The Chairman also has simply signed below the notes of the Secretary. This is hardly sufficient to show that he applied his mind in regard to the grant of the temporary permit. The matter in question, being quasi-judicial, could hardly be disposed of in the manner as done by the Chairman of the Transport Authority. Under the circumstances, we have no alternative left, but to quash the order of grant of the temporary stage carriage permit. The authorities should
be careful in this regard while granting such permits and should specify the particular public need on which ground such permits are granted and should dispose of such applications in accordance with law.
6. In the result, this application is allowed and order contained in Annexure ‘2’ is quashed. In the circumstances of the case, there will no order as to costs.