Bhajan Singh v. State Transport Authority, Bihar — 1984 DIGILAW 206 (PAT)

JUDGMENT Ashwini Kumar Sinha, J. These two writ cases involve identical questions of law and hence they are being disposed of by a common judgment. The points of law involved are, (i) Whether the State Transport Authority, having once granted the permit, had power to review its own order, and (ii) Even if it had the power whether it could review its order without having a show cause notice to the petitioner. 2. The cases involve the grant of a National Permit. The petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 1029 of 1984 is an unemployed matriculate holding driving licence and procured the vehicle in question form the bank on loan to maintain his livelihood. The State Transport Authority advertised for about 450 grant of National Public Carrier permits and in response to the aforesaid advertisement the petitioners applied for the same and according to the petitioners, the proceeding of section 57 (3) of the Motor Vehicle Act, were followed. Thereafter the matter was considered by the State Transport Authority in the meetings held on 15/16/17/26 of September, 1983 and also on 2/3/12 of November, 1983. The petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 1029 of 1984 appeared along with the registration book of truck no. BPA 9537 model registered in joint name of the petitioner and his younger brother A.K. Datta had also the driving licence and unemployed certificate etc. The Authority accepted the case of the petitioner and directed that at the time of issuance of the permit the petitioner was to produce the registration book in his own name only as the application was on behalf of the petitioner alone. The Authority granted the permit to the petitioner and a notice was, issued by the State Transport Authority to produces the aforesaid vehicle complete with the payment of road taxes, additional tax etc. 3. In compliances of the aforesaid order of the Authority the petitioner produced the registration book and this time, as ordered by the Authority, the registration book showed the name of the petitioner alone and the petitioner requested for the issuance of the permit. The Authority accepted all the papers of the petitioner including taxes, insurance etc. 4. The trouble arose as the office put up a note in the meeting held on 20/21 January, 1984 and in view of that note the State Transport Authority refused to issue permit and cancelled the permit already granted on 26th September, 1983. The Authority accepted all the papers of the petitioner including taxes, insurance etc. 4. The trouble arose as the office put up a note in the meeting held on 20/21 January, 1984 and in view of that note the State Transport Authority refused to issue permit and cancelled the permit already granted on 26th September, 1983. Thereafter on 20/21 of January 1984, the State Transport Authority, suo motu reviewed its earlier order (granting permit) on the ground that as the owner book on the date of the grant did not stand in the name of the petitioner alone, but in joint names of the petitioner and his younger brother, the State Transport Authority felt that it was wrong on his part to grant the permit. 5. It is pertinent to note here that as directed by the State Transport Authority the petitioner, later on, did produce the owner book which stood only in his name and not in the joint Dames as it was on the date of the grant. The petitioner had done it in pursuance of the direction given by the State Transport Authority itself. 6. The only difference in the first case mentioned above and in C.W.J.C. No 1538 of 1984 is that in the first case the petitioner bad produced the owner book which was in joint names (in the Dame of the petitioner and in the Dame of his younger brother) where as in this writ case (C.W.J.C 1538 of 1984), the vehicle in question, i.e. truck no. BHG 8809 was purchased from one Surjit Singh and the owner book was not still in the name of the petitioner. The petitioner in this case while submitting his paper submitted an affidavit of Surjit Singh in whose name the owner book stood and satisfied the State Transport Authority that the original owner Surjit Singh had transferred the aforesaid vehicle in the name of this petitioner. This affidavit by Surjit Singh was before the State Transport Authority. The petitioner also filed all other papers as required and after considering the papers the State Transport Authority directed the petitioner to produce the registration certificate of the vehicle in question on demand after grant of permit. This affidavit by Surjit Singh was before the State Transport Authority. The petitioner also filed all other papers as required and after considering the papers the State Transport Authority directed the petitioner to produce the registration certificate of the vehicle in question on demand after grant of permit. In this case also permit was granted to the petitioner on the same date on which the permit was granted in the earlier case and a letter was sent to the petitioner (Annexure 2 to this writ application). In compliance with the order of the Authority, the petitioner paid all the road taxes, got the vehicle insured and produced the vehicle in question duly transferred and registered in his name on 3rd January, 1984 before the State Transport Authority. 7. From the foregoing facts it is obvious that tile order for grant of permit was already passed by the State Transport Authority in favour of the petitioners or both the cases and issuance of the permit was only a formality. 8. In the case of the persent petitioner also (C.W.J.C. No. 1538 of 1984) the State Transport Authority, as in the first case, suo motu reconsidered the matter and decided that as on the date of the grant of the permit the vehicle was not registered in the name of the petitioner, the permit could not be issued and having said so cancelled the order by which the permit was granted. 9. Thus, as already stated above, the question is, if the issuance of the permit was only a mere formality, could the State Transport Authority suo motu sit over its own earlier order and review the same and cancel the order by which it had granted the permits to the petitioner. 10. I hold that the Authority bed no power to review its own order suo motu. Eyen if any other person would have filed an application for review, it had no power to entertain such an application as there is no power in the State Transport Authority to review its order. It is well-settled that the power of review is not an inherent power but is created by statute and expressly conferred by the statute. The power of review has always been held to be a creature of statute. It is well-settled that the power of review is not an inherent power but is created by statute and expressly conferred by the statute. The power of review has always been held to be a creature of statute. If authority is needed, for such a simple proposition of law, I may only refer of a few cases only though there is catena or decisions on the point; see the case of Patel Narshiji Thakershi and others V. Pradyumant Singh Arjunsinghji and State of Bihar and another V. Ram Dayal Missir, etc. Thus, in view of the well-established proposition of law, as stated above, the State Transport Authority exceeded its jurisdiction by passing the impugned orders dated 20/21 January, 1984 (Annexure 3 in C.W.J.C. No. 1029 of 1984 and Annexure 4 in C.W.J.C. No. 1538 of 1984). 11. As the writ cases succeed on the very first point, the second point remains academic and I refrain from deciding the same. 13. In the result, the writ applications are allowed and impugned order are quashed. However, there will be no orders as to costs. Sushil Kumar Jha, J. I entirely agree, The writ petitioners shall now be entitled to have their permits granted in view of the judgment of my learned brother. Application allowed.