IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4320 of 2009 SAIYAD NASIM AKHTAR, son of Saiyad Abdul Hafiz, resident of village – Hamjapur, PS Amas, District –Gaya On behalf of Nand Kishore Yadav son of Bal Kishun Gope, resident of Mohalla – Chiryatand, P S – Rampur , District – Gaya. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR . 2. Magadh Regional Transport Authority, Gaya. 3. Commissioner cum Chairman, Magadh Regional Transport Authority, Gaya. 4. Secretary, Magadh Regional Transport Authority, Gaya. 5. S M Mozahir Hassan son of S M Usuf Hassan, resident of village – Amjhar Sharif, Haspura, P S – Haspura, Dist. Aurangabad. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Nand Kishore Sinha. For private respondent : Mrs. Archana Sinha. For the State : Mr Ashok Kumar Dubey, AC to AAG 9. ------- 05. 08.12.2009 The writ application has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 12.2.2009 which has been passed by the Commissioner, Magadh Regional Transport Authority, Gaya, which is annexed as Annexure 5 to the writ application as well as the so- called order dated 14.2.2009 passed by the Secretary of the said authority whereby objection filed by the petitioner to the grant of permit to respondent No.5 on the same route has been rejected. After filing of the writ petition I.A. No. 3059 of 2009 has come to be filed by the Intervener in whose favour permit has been granted for vacating the stay order. I. A. No. 3059 of 2009 is allowed. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned orders in question have been passed in conflict with the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act and Rules inasmuch as no permit can be granted on the same route with the same time and more so - 2 - when petitioner had a permit in existence prior to the application made by the private respondent. The objection raised by him has been summarily rejected without giving reasons and the same requires interference. The stand of the private respondent based on the pleadings and materials on record is that the reason for rejection of the objection of the petitioner stands corroborated by perusal of Annexure-A, which is a letter of sale executed between the petitioner and one Nand Kishore Yadav, who was original permit holder of the bus in question. The sale letter contained in Annexure-A is dated 18.12.2007 and endorsement made at the sale letter indicates that even money was paid and consideration passed between the parties. Thereafter yet another general power of attorney has been executed only to show that there was no final transfer of the ownership but the present petitioner was authorized to look after the affairs of the bus, its management and control. Reading of the two documents would show that there was intent purpose and action taken by the parties to alienate the right in that bus. If that be so, then the Divisional Commissioner has committed no mistake in recording categorically that Nand Kishore Yadav had sold his bus way back on 18.12.2007 and the permit not being transferable the present petitioner has no right to the same or to make objection against the award of permit to the present private respondent. Rationale or reason assigned in the order is not in breach of any law or per say arbitrary. The order does not warrant interference. - 3 - There is no merit in the writ application. It stands dismissed. rkp (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)