Skip to content


U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Meerut and anr. Vs. the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Misc. Writ No. 5865 of 1973
Judge
Reported inAIR1977All440
ActsMotor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 64A, 68F(1) and 68F(3)
AppellantU.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Meerut and anr.
RespondentThe Regional Transport Authority, Meerut and ors.
Appellant AdvocateS.K. Sharma, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateStanding Counsel
Excerpt:
motor vehicles - maintainability of revision - sections 64-a and 68-f (1) of motor vehicles act, 1939 - revision - refusal of grant - under section 64-a revision is maintainable against the order which are not appealable. - - under sub-section (2) of the aforesaid section, the state transport authority as well as the regional transport authority has been conferred power to curtail the area of the permit or cancel a permit in order to give effect to a scheme notified under chapter iv-a of the act......as the petitioner had an alternative remedy of revision under section 64-a of the act before the state transport appellate tribunal. since no revision was preferred and the present writ petition was filed, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the present proceedings. on behalf of the petitioner, it was asserted that the remedy of appeal or revision was not available to the petitioner in view of section 68-f (3) of the act section 68-f (3) lays down that no appeal shall lie against any action taken, or order passed, by the state transport authority or any regional transport authority under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2). under sub-section (1) of section 68-f, the regional transport authority is required to grant permit to the state transport undertaking, if an application.....
Judgment:

K.N. Singh, J.

This petition is directed against the order of the Regional Transport Authority dated 30th May, 1973, refusing to grant permit to the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, under Section 68-F (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

2. At the outset of hearing, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the respondents that the petition stands abated tinder Section 58 (2) of the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, inasmuch as the petitioner had an alternative remedy of revision under Section 64-A of the Act before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Since no revision was preferred and the present writ petition was filed, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the present proceedings. On behalf of the petitioner, it was asserted that the remedy of appeal or revision was not available to the petitioner in view of Section 68-F (3) of the Act Section 68-F (3) lays down that no appeal shall lie against any action taken, or order passed, by the State Transport Authority or any Regional Transport Authority under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2). Under Sub-section (1) of Section 68-F, the Regional Transport Authority is required to grant permit to the State Transport Undertaking, if an application is made for the said purpose. Under Sub-section (2) of the aforesaid Section, the State Transport Authority as well as the Regional Transport Authority has been conferred power to curtail the area of the permit or cancel a permit in order to give effect to a scheme notified under Chapter IV-A of the Act. All the three clauses read together make it clear that the orders passed under Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 68-F of the Act are not amenable to appellate jurisdiction before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Sub-section (3) of Section 68-F, however, does not contain any provision curtailing revisional power conferred on the Appellate Tribunal by Section 64-A of the Act. Section 64-A lays down that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal may, either on its own motion or on an application made to it, call for the record of any case in which an order has been made by a State Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority and in which no appeal lies, and it it appears to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal that the order made by the State Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority is improper or illegal, it may pass such order in relation to the case as it deems fit. Under Section 64-A of the Act revision is maintainable against those orders which are not appealable under Section 64-A of the Act. Since revision is maintainable against orders which cannot be challenged in appeal, we see no reason, as to why no revision would lie against an order of the Regional Transport Authority refusing to grant permit under Section 68-F (1). Section 68-F (3) merely bars appeal, it does not take away the jurisdiction ofthe State Transport Appellate Tribunal conferred on it by Section 64-A. In Nilkanth Prasadv. The Secretary, Chhotanagpur Regional Transport Authority, Ranchi (AIR 1962 SC 1135) it was held that against an order issued by the Regional Transport Authority under Section 68-F (1), revision was maintainable under Section 64-A of the Act. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioner had an alternative remedy.

3. The petition, accordingly, stands abated. The stay order is discharged. The parties shall bear their own costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //