Case: Goverdhan Lal Dhawan Vs. State Of Bihar &amp; Others

2. After the opening of the Mahatama Gandhi Sethu connecting South Bihar and North Bihar by road there was a great need for granting permits to operate stage carriage services between place s which are situated in North Bihar and the places in South Bihar. Therefore, in order to satisfy the demand of the travelling public, the North Bihar Regional Transport Authority issued an advertisement inviting applications for granting stage carriage permits in respect ofroutes connecting certain places situated within its jurisdiction and certain other places which are situated within the jurisdiction of South Bihar Regional Transport Authority. A number of applications were received for the grant of the permits on the saidroutes. The North Bihar Regional Transport Authority issued notices to all the persons concerned stating that the said applications would be taken up for consideration at its meeting to be held on 7th April, 1988.. The petitioner who was operating some stage carriages on some of theroutes filed a writ petition in C.W.J.C. No. 2063 of 1988 on the file of the High Court of Patna questioning the power of the North Bihar Regional Transport Authority to grant permits on theroutes without a prior agreement between it and the South Bihar Regional Transport Authority and obtained an order of stay of the said proceedings from the High Court on 6th April, 1988 pending disposal of the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition was heard by the High Court on 3.5.1988 and it was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court the Petitioner has filed this petition.When the Writ Petition was filed before the High Court the petitioner did not implead the applicants who had made applications for the grant of stage carriage permits. The applicants, however, appeared before the High Court as interveners and made their submissions. They contended that the Writ Petition was liable to be dismissed since they (the applicants for permits) had not been impleaded as parties and that the contention of the petitioner that a prior agreement between the two Regional Transport Authorities was necessary before any one of them could grant a permit was erroneous. The High Court has upheld both the contentions.

Reasoning:
5. The North Bihar Regional Transport Authority has, therefore, jurisdiction to consider the applications for the grant of thepermits in question. After they are granted, it is open to the South Bihar Regional Transport Authority to consider whether they should be countersigned or not after following the prescribed procedure.The High Court was, therefore, right in dismissing the Writ Petition.