1985 (9) TMI 348 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the Transport Authority's resolution dated 16th October 1981.
2. Jurisdiction of the Transport Authority in modifying the route without formal applications.
3. Defective publication of applications for route inclusion.

Summary:

1. Legality of the Transport Authority's Resolution:
The petitioners challenged the legality of an order dated 18th May 1982 by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, which set aside a resolution dated 16th October 1981 by the Regional Transport Authority, Moradabad. The Tribunal found that the proceedings of 16th October 1981 were invalid as one of the members, Sri Janardan Prasad, participated without any legal authority. The Tribunal held that the Transport Authority constituted by the notification dated 29th July 1981 ceased to exist upon the issuance of a new notification on 14th October 1981, making any decisions taken thereafter void.

2. Jurisdiction of the Transport Authority:
The Tribunal ruled that the Transport Authority acted without jurisdiction by including a portion of the route between Bhootpuri and Jaspur in the permits without formal applications for modification. The Tribunal directed that the petitioners should make formal applications for the amendment of the route. The court upheld this view, emphasizing that the Transport Authority must follow the procedural requirements as mandated by law.

3. Defective Publication of Applications:
The Tribunal found the publication of the applications defective as the corrigendum was issued long after the 15-day period for filing objections had expired, depriving intending objectors of their statutory right. The court agreed with this finding, noting that the defective publication invalidated the process.

Conclusion:
The petition was dismissed, and the order of remand by the Appellate Tribunal was maintained, except for the modification that the petitioners need not make formal applications for route modification as previously directed by the Tribunal. The court emphasized the importance of following statutory procedures and the legal effect of notifications.