High Court Jharkhand High Court

Rajendra Prasad Agarwal vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors. on 8 March, 2006

Jharkhand High Court
Rajendra Prasad Agarwal vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors. on 8 March, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006 (2) JCR 402 Jhr
Bench: S Mukhopadhaya, D Sinha


ORDER

1. The appellant was granted ” Letter of Authority” by the Registering Authority-cum-joint Transport Commissioner under Rule 63 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 to run a Testing Station, which was cancelled by the principal Secretary. Transport Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi by the impugned order dated 27th June, 2005. Which was challenged by the appellant, in the writ petition.

2. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 25th August. 2005 while held the order dated 27th June, 2005 passed by the Principal Secretary, Transport Department. Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi illegal and quashed the same, also quashed the “Letter of Authority”, as was granted to the appellant by the Registering Authority, being illegal.

3. Admittedly, no person challenged the “Letter of Authority”, as was issued in favour of the appellant nor any such prayer was made on behalf of any of the respondents to give such declaration. The appellant was not given any opportunity to defend his case, as there appears to be no order passed by the learned Single Judge giving opportunity to the appellant that he may declare the “Letter of Authority” as illegal. There is nothing on the record that any step was taken by the competent authority under Rule 69, forfeiting the security deposit of appellant, nor any step was taken to suspend the same.

4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, while we upheld the order passed by the learned Single Judge in respect to the order dated 27th June, 2005 issued by the Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi, declaring the same as illegal, set aside that part of the judgment, rendered by the learned Single Judge, whereby he has quashed the “Letter of Authority”, granted to the appellant. However, this order shall not stand in the way of the competent authority to pass order in accordance with Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 after notice and hearing the parties.

The appeal stands disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions.