Sanjeev Animesh Kumar vs State of Jharkhand and Others

M.Y. Eqbal, J.—The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Santhal Pargana Regional Transport Authority, Dumka in its meeting dated 31.10.2001 allowing counter signature to the permanent stage carriage permit held by respondent No. 4 for the interstate route Ranchi to Dumka via Ratu Road, Patratu, Ramgarh, Bokaro, Dhanbad, Maithan, Mihijam, Jamtara. The contention of the petitioner is that the Regional Transport Authority has no jurisdiction to grant permit or allow counter signature to the permit when some of the portion of the route falls within another State. Learned counsel submitted that the same authority earlier rejected application of other persons but it was allowed the application of respondent No. 4.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent drawn my attention to Section 69 and 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act and submitted that there is an exception to the power of the Regional Transport Authority where it can grant permit if the area covers within another State does not exceed 16 km. The question therefore, falls for consideration is whether in the route in question the area falling within interstate exceeds prescribed kilometer and whether on the factual position the Regional Transport Authority had jurisdiction to grant this permit.

In my opinion petitioner should first approach the State Transport Appellate Tribunal duly constituted in the State of Jharkhand. The Regional Transport Appellate Tribunal shall consider the entire facts and take a decision whether the transport authority exceeded its jurisdiction in granting permit to the respondent No. 4. I, therefore, direct the petitioner to first approach the Appellant Tribunal by filing revision as provided u/s 90 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Since the matter remain pending before this Court. I direct that if the petitioner files revision before the appellate tribunal within three weeks from today, the Tribunal shall entertain the revision application and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of filing of the revision application. Needless to say that respondent No. 4 shall also be given opportunity of hearing along with the petitioner before disposing of the revision application.