IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 170 of 2009 S.K. Srivastava son of D.P. Srivastava resident of 25/38 Khadri Mohalla Dehradun District Dehradun. …… Appellant. Versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Dehradun and two others. ….Respondents. With Special Appeal No. 172 of 2009 Subhash Uniyal son of Sri Roshan Lal resident of Village & Post Gujrada, Dehradun. …… Appellant. Versus Regional Transport Authority Dehradun through its Secretary, Deistrict Dehradun and two others. ….Respondents. With Special Appeal No. 173 of 2009 Vipin Kumar Jain son of Sri M.K. Jain resident of near Raveev Nagar, Dehradun. …… Appellant. Versus Regional Transport Authority Dehradun through its Secretary, District Dehradun and two others. ….Respondents. With Special Appeal No. 174 of 2009 Ravindra Singh son of Shyam Lal resident of Village Paundha, Dehradun. …… Appellant. Versus Regional Transport Authority Dehradun through its Secretary, District Dehradun and two others. ….Respondents. 2 With Special Appeal No. 175 of 2009 Vinod Chandola son of Sri Ramesh Chandra Chandola resident of Danda Lakhond Post Office Gujrada, Dehradun. …… Appellant. Versus Regional Transport Authority Dehradun through its Secretary, District Dehradun and two others. ….Respondents. With Special Appeal No. 176 of 2009 Anup Goswami son of Rajendra Goswami resident of Nala Pani, Dehradun. …… Appellant. Versus Regional Transport Authority Dehradun through its Secretary, District Dehradun and two others. ….Respondents. With Special Appeal No. 177 of 2009 Reena Bhardwaj wife of Ashwini Bhardwaj, Resident of Village & Post Office Majra, Dehradun. …… Appellant. Versus Regional Transport Authority Dehradun through its Secretary, District Dehradun and two others. ….Respondents. With Special Appeal No. 179 of 2009 Sanjay Dobhal son of Sri M.C. Dobhal resident of 27, Suman Puri Adoiwal, Dehradun. …… Appellant. Versus Regional Transport Authority Dehradun through its Secretary, District Dehradun and two others. ….Respondents. 3 Sri Gopal Narain, Sri Anil Dabral and Sri M.S. Bisht, Advocate, for the appellant in the above appeals. Sri J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel, for the State/respondent no. 1. Sri Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate, Assisted by Ms. Indu Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent no. 2. Ms. Mamta Joshi, Advocate, for the respondent no. 3. Dated:- 11.9.2009 Coram: Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal,J. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. {Oral}) Since the controversy involved in all these special appeals is similar, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are being heard and decided together by this common order. All these special appeals except Special Appeal No. 170 of 2009 have been preferred against the common Judgment and order dated 21.8.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) Nos. 749 of 2009 and 785 of 2009. Special Appeal No. 170 of 2009 has been preferred against the Judgment and order dated 1.9.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1448 of 2009. Learned senior counsel Sri Sharad Sharma and learned C.S.C Sri J.P. Joshi for the respondents have raised preliminary objection that these appeals are not maintainable since the order has been passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Dehradun in the revisions, and the order passed in revision was assailed before the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and the Judgments and orders passed by the learned Single Judge therein are impugned in these special appeals. 4 The learned counsel for the appellant Sri Gopal Narain vehemently contended that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal is not having the power of the court and it cannot be said to be the Tribunal, and relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in Engineering Mazdoor Sabha and others Vs. Hind Cycles, Ltd. and others, reported in 1963 (6) FLR 103, and relied upon the para 6 wherein it has been held that the tribunals which are contemplated by Article 136 (1) are clothed with some of the powers of the Courts. They can compel witnesses to appear, they can administer oath, they are required to follow certain rules of procedure, the proceedings before them are required to comply with rules of natural justice, they may not be bound by the strict and technical rules of evidence, but, nevertheless, they must decide on evidence adduced before them; they may not be bound by other technical rules of law, but their decisions must, nevertheless, be consistent with the general principles of law. In other words, they have to act judicially and reach their decisions in an objective manner and they cannot proceed purely administratively or base their conclusions on subjective tests or inclinations. The learned counsel for the appellant has drew our attention to the Rules 91 and 94 of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998. We are unable to accept the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal has been created by the Act under Section 89 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which reads as under:- “89(2) The State Government shall constitute such number of Transport Appellate Tribunals as it thinks fit and each such Tribunal shall consist of a judicial officer who is not below the rank of a 5 District Judge or who is qualified to be a Judge of the High Court and it shall exercise jurisdiction within such area as may be notified by that Government.” From the perusal of Section 89(2) above, it is clear that the Tribunal was constituted by the State Government exercising jurisdiction within such area as notified by the Government. Quasi-judicial power envisaged in the Tribunal itself shows that the Tribunal is headed by judicial officer not below the rank of District Judge, who is qualified to be a Judge of a High Court. Prior to the amendment with effect from 14.11.1994, sub Section (2) of Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was as under:- “(2) The State Government shall constitute for the State, a State Transport Appellate Tribunal which shall consist of a judicial officer who is not below the rank of a District Judge, or who is qualified to be a Judge of a High Court. Provided that in relation to a Union territory, the Tribunal may consist of the Administrator of that territory or any officer who has judicial experience.” The phrase ‘who has judicial experience’ itself indicates that the intention of legislature behind introducing the provision was that the officer who is presiding the Appellate Tribunal must have judicial experience to exercise the judicial power. 6 It is pertinent to mention here that in the Judgment rendered by the Apex Court (supra), it has also been held that “it would thus be noticed that apart from the importance of the trappings of a power of Court, the basic and essential condition, which makes an authority or a body a tribunal under Article 136, is that it should be constituted by the State and should be invested with State’s inherent judicial power.” For the reasons stated above we are of the view that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal is a Tribunal within the meaning of Article 136 (1) of the Constitution of India and the impugned order has been passed by the learned Single Judge under Article 227 having supervisory jurisdiction. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Acme Tele Power Ltd. Vs. Sintex Industries Ltd. and another, 2008 (2) U.D. 201, in para 11 has observed as under:- “Para 11.-By tracing in brief the aforesaid Legislative History leading to the enactment of 1962 Act as well as the framing of Rule 5 of 1952 Rules, both of which have substantially, explicitly as well as by necessary implication, modified Clause 10 of the Letters Patent dated 17th March, 1866, what emerges is that presently appeals from a judgment of one Judge to a Division Bench are maintainable in the High Court of Uttarakhand, except the appeals which relate to or arise out of the following categories, classes, or types of Judgment/cases:- (i) Judgments passed by a Single Bench in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction in respect of a 7 decree or order made by a court subject to the superintendence of the High Court; (ii) Judgments passed by a Single Judge in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction; (iii) Judgments passed in the exercise of the power of superintendence of the High Court (Single Judge) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; (iv) Judgments passed in exercise of criminal jurisdiction; (v) Any judgment passed by a Single Judge either under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India if it relates to or arises out of any judgment or order:- (a) passed by a court, tribunal or statutory arbitrator while exercising jurisdiction under any U.P. Act (read Uttarakhand Act) or a Central Act with respect to any matter enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India; and (b) passed by the Government, any Officer, or any Authority of the Government in the exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction vesting in the said Government, the said Officer, or the said Authority under any U.P. Act (read Uttarakhand Act) or a Central Act with respect to any matter enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India.” Therefore, it is clear from clause (iii) of para 11 quoted above that if the order in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 has been passed by the learned Single Judge, the special appeal is not maintainable. 8 The provision of special appeal is contained in Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court, 1952 and in view of the language of the Rule, no special appeal is maintainable against the Judgment of a Single Judge rendered in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India in respect of any Judgment or order of a tribunal made or purported to be made in exercise of power. Since the impugned orders have been passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in revisions and the order passed by the learned Single Judge under Article 227 having supervisory jurisdiction, the special appeal is not maintainable. With the above observation, all the special appeals are dismissed in limine. All the pending applications in all the special appeals stand dismissed accordingly. (B.S.Verma, J.) (B.C.Kandpal, J.) 11.9.2009 RMY 9