IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.479 of 2009 ANITA UPADHYAYA @ UPADHYAY WIFE OF SRI ANIL KUMAR UPADHAYA,RESIDENT OF ROAD NO.20, HOUSE NO.76, SRIKRISHNA NAGAR, P.O. SRIKRISHNA NAGAR, POLICE STATION BUDHA COLONY, DISTRICT- PATNA.----APPELLANT Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT VISHWESHWARIYA BHAWAN BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 2. THE SOUTH BIHAR REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PATNA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY 3. THE CHAIRMAN SOUTH BIHAR REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PATNA. 4. THE SECRETARY, SOUTH BIHAR REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, PATNA. 5. LALLAN SINGH, SON OF LATE THANAPATI RAI, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA KARBIGHAHIA, POLICE STATION JAKKANPUR, POST OFFICE G.P.O. DISTRICT AND TWON ----- RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the appellant:- Mr. Rajendra Narain, For Respondents:- Mr. Ashok Kumar Jha 3 20.8.2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the writ petitioner, respondent no.5. The competent authority under the Motor Vehicles Act refused to renew the permit for running a mini bus in an area in the town of Patna and also refused to allow the prayer of the writ petitioner for replacement of earlier mini bus for which he had filed an application before the vehicle was scraped. The writ petitioner challenged the order of the statutory authority and the writ petition has been allowed mainly because the writ Court found that the authorities should reconsider the writ petitioner’s prayer as the reason given for refusal of licence and refusal to replace the vehicle was not - 2 - reasonable or logical. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that from the impugned order which was Annexure 13 to the writ application it would appear that the authorities have found that before the application for replacement of the vehicle could be allowed, the vehicle itself was permitted by the writ petitioner to be demolished as scrape and no information of that was given in writing to the competent authority. According to him, for such lapse the competent authority was justified in refusing to renew the licence and to reject the prayer for replacement of the vehicle. On going through the judgment and order of the writ Court we find that the entire matter has been considered in correct perspective and the matter has been rightly remitted back to the competent authority for proper decision in the matter. We find no good reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (P.K.Misra,C.J.) (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.) A.Kumar - 3 -