TMI Blog1985 (9) TMI 348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te No. 1 made applications under Section 57(8) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the inclusion of routes Nos, 2 and 3 in their existing permits. The petitioners Nos. 9 to 20 (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners IInd set) the existing permit-holders of route No. 3 made similar applications for the inclusion of routes Nos. 1 and 2 in their existing permits; and the existing permit-holders of route No. 2 made similar application for the inclusion of routes Nos. 1 and 3 in their respective permits. In addition, all of them desired inclusion of an independent route from Bhootipuri to Kashipur via Swawala and Jaspur. These applications were rejected by the Transport Authority by its resoluton dated 29th August, 1978, the unsuccessful applicants preferred separate revision aplications and these were disposed of by the Appellate Tribunal in two sets by orders dated 28th March, 1979 and 20th July, 1979. The Appellate Tribunal maintained the resolution of the Transport Authority except with regard to the inclusion of the new route aforementioned. However, even with respect to the new route, as claimed by the petitioners, the Appellate Tribunal ga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... titioners IInd set may be republished. 4. Section 44(1) of the Act provides for Transport Authorities. It states :-- 44. Transport Authorities. -- (1)The State Government shall, by notification in the official Gazette, constitute for the State a State Transport Authority to exercise and discharge the powers and functions specified in subsection (3); and shall in like manner constitute Regional Transport Authorities to exercise and discharge throughout such areas in this Chapter referred to as regional as may be specified in the notification, in respect of each Regional Transport Authority, the powers and functions conferred by or under this Chapter on such Authorities. The two provisos thereto are not relevant. 5. This provision empowers the State Government to constitute Regional Transport Authorities for different regions. For its region the Authority is to exercise and discharge the powers and functions conferred by or under Chapter IV. 6. A notification was issued on 29th July, 1981. By it, in supersession of a notification dated 5th December, 1980, the Governor constituted with immediate effect the Regional Transport Authorities in Uttar Pradesh. The Transpo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... when a Regional Transport Authority is created in respect of a particular region, only the said authority can exercise powers and functions in relation to that region. See Ratan Lal Gupta v. Mohd. Ramjani, 1973 All LJ 139. From this it follows that the matters which were pending before the Transport Authority as constituted by the notification dated 29th July, 1981, stood automatically and instantaneously transferred to the Transport Authority as constituted by the notification dated 14th October, 1981, immediately on the publication of the later notification. Section 44(1) does not contemplate a vacuum in relation to any particular Regional Transport Authority. Upon the constitution of a new Transport Authority with effect from a certain date two consequences happen simultaneously. The old Authority loses its jurisdiction and the new Authority acquires it at the same moment. Notionally and in the eye of law there is no time lag. There is no gap or interregnum in the exercise of the powers and functions conferred by Chapter IV. 9. There is another aspect of the matter. A Tribunal of limited jurisdiction cannot derive jurisdiction apart from the statute. No approval or consent c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es with immediate effect. When did the notification of 14th October, 1981 become effective? Did its operation remain suspended merely because it could not reach the office of the Transport Authority till 16th October, 1981? This question, in my opinion, stands answered by a decision of a Full Bench consisting of five Honble Judges of this Court in Avdhesh Singh v. Bikarama Ahir, AIR 1975 All 324, where their Lordships held : -- .....Publication in the Official Gazette in this country has always been considered in the eye of law as effective publication. Their Lordships relied upon a decision in State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George, AIR 1965 SC 722. In that case the question arose whether the respondents therein could be convicted for importing gold in India contrary to the provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1977 in disregard of a notification issued by the Reserve Bank of India in the Official Gazette. On 25th August, 1948, the Reserve Bank of India issued a notification of the same date. Subsequently, on 8th November, 1962 in supersession of the said notification the Reserve Bank of India issued another notification published in the Official Gazette date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Magistrate, Etah (Civil Misc. Writ No. 5935 of 1974, D/- 19-3-1975) the Court took the view that the publication of a notification was complete only when the Gazette containing the notification became available to the public. On the facts of the case, the Court held that as the Official Gazette containing the notification under Section 269D was not available to the public before 14th October, 1974, the competent authority will not acquire the jurisdiction to continue the proceedings as the proceedings had not been commenced within the statutory period. This case is distinguishable on facts. Before the Appellate Tribunal the petitioners did not set up the case that the Gazette Extraordinary published on 14th October, 1981, was not available to the public at all till 16th October, 1981. Even in this court no such averment has been made. The only averment made is that the notification dated 14th October, 1981 had not been received in the office of the Transport Authority till 16th October, 1981. The attention of this Court, it appears, was not drawn either to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George (supra) or to the decision of the Full Bench of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... validly appointed..... It would be a different matter if the constitution of the Court itself is under challenge. We are not concerned with such a situation in the instant case. 16. The conclusion, therefore, is irresistible that the doctrine cannot salvage the decision taken by the Transport Authority on 16th October, 1981 even for the time being. 17. The Appellate Tribunal had, on 28th March 1979, and 20th July, 1979, while passing the order of remand, given a direction to the Transport Authority to consider the applications of the petitioners and others for the inclusion of the portion of the new route between Bhootpuri to Jaspur in their respective permits. This order became final. The Transport Authority was bound by this order and so were the parties. In view of this direction, the question of the petitioners making a formal application for the modification of the route mentioned in their applications under Section 57(8) of the Act had no relevance. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal patently erred in giving a direction that in the remanded proceedings the petitioners and others should make an application to that effect. 18. No exception can be taken to the view of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
