Skip to content


Abhey Kumar JaIn Vs. the State Transport Appellate Tribunal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 310 and 343 of 1977
Judge
Reported in1977WLN(UC)452
AppellantAbhey Kumar Jain
RespondentThe State Transport Appellate Tribunal
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases ReferredAbhey Kumar Jain v. The
Excerpt:
.....on the record to enable it to give from finding in regard to the merits & demerits of the respective claims of the parties.;(b) constitution of india - article 226--no error apparent on record--extra ordinary jurisdiction cannot be invoked.;the order of the stat, in my opinion, neither suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record nor there is manifest error of jaw justifying the interference in extra-ordinary jurisdiction.;writs dismissed - - suffice it to say that the stat was of the opinion that there were no sufficient materials before it to decide the case effectively on merits. the stat, therefore, remanded the case bad to the rta for considering the merits and demerits of the claims of the respective parties in the light of the observations made in its..........therefore, felt aggrieved by the said order and carried the matter by way of appeal before the stat. the stat after briefly narrating the contentions raised before it, gave its finding which need not be dealt with in detail here. suffice it to say that the stat was of the opinion that there were no sufficient materials before it to decide the case effectively on merits. the stat, therefore, remanded the case bad to the rta for considering the merits and demerits of the claims of the respective parties in the light of the observations made in its judgment. this order was passed by the stat on june 29, 1977.3. both, abhev kumar jain and berisal singh, being aggrieved by the order of remand of the stat, have moved this court under article 226 for quashing the impugned order of remand.4......
Judgment:

M.L. Joshi, J.

1. These are two connected writ petitions directed against the same order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur (here in after called 'the STAT') dated June 29, 1977. The facts giving rise to these petitions are almost identical. It will, therefore, suffice to give facts from S.B. Writ Petition No. 310 of 1977 Abhey Kumar Jain v. The STAT and Ors.

2. There is a route called Osian-Shergarh route. This route is an interregional route lying exclusively within the territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur (hereinafter called 'the RTA'). On this route there was already a scope of two permits against which permits had been granted. Later on scope in respect of this route was revised to four permits with two return services In order to fill up two vacancies caused on account of revision of scope, the RTA invited applications for the grant of two non-temporary permits on the said route vide Gazette Notification dated May 6, 1976. In response to the said Notification applications were submitted to the RTA. There were three claimants for the above two vacancies, namely, Abhey Kumar Jain, Berisal Singh and the non-petitioner No. 3 Satguru Bus Service. These applications were considered by the RTA in its meeting held on January 17, 1977. The RTA by its resolution dated January 17 1977, granted one permit to Abhey Kumar Jain, petitioner, and the second to Bengal Singh. Non-petitioner No. 3 Sat guru Bus Service, therefore, felt aggrieved by the said order and carried the matter by way of appeal before the STAT. The STAT after briefly narrating the contentions raised before it, gave its finding which need not be dealt with in detail here. Suffice it to say that the STAT was of the opinion that there were no sufficient materials before it to decide the case effectively on merits. The STAT, therefore, remanded the case bad to the RTA for considering the merits and demerits of the claims of the respective parties in the light of the observations made in its judgment. This order was passed by the STAT on June 29, 1977.

3. Both, Abhev Kumar Jain and Berisal Singh, being aggrieved by the order of remand of the STAT, have moved this Court under Article 226 for quashing the impugned order of remand.

4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and carefully perused the impugned order of the STAT. The STAT has high lighted some of the lacunae relating to the materials placed before it and has observed that it would not be possible for it to give a firm finding relating to the merits and demerits of the claims of the respective claimants in respect of above two permits in the absence of sufficient materials The STAT was, therefore, of the opinion that in order to do fuller justice to the parties it would be just and proper to remand the case in order to enable the respective parties in place sufficient material in support of their respect claims for complete and final adjudication of the claims of the respective parties.

5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at some length. After hearing them, I am of the opinion that the order of remand passed is just and proper in the circumstances of the case. The STAT is correct when it observed, that sufficient materials had not been brought on the record to enable it to give firm finding in regard to the merits and demerits of the respective claims of the parties. From the perusal of the impugned order of the STAT 1 also feel that the evidence/documents which ought to have been brought before the STAT, have not been placed before it. The STAT has, therefore rightly expressed its inability to give a firm finding on the merits and demerits of the respective claims of the parties. No valid exception, therefore, can be taken against the impugned order of remand passed by the learned STAT. The order of the STAT, in my opinion, neither suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record nor there is manifest error of law justifying the interference in extra-ordinary jurisdiction. I have, therefore, no hesitation to uphold the impugned order of remand passed by the STAT. The RTA shall now expeditiously decide the matter afresh after considering further evidence which may be brought before it. However, in the interest of traveling public in the mean time the petitioners Abhey Kumar Jain and Berisal Singh, who have already been plying the vehicles, shall continue to ply till the final decision is taken in the matter by the RTA.

6. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed. The costs are kept easy.


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