Superseded transport authority lost jurisdiction immediately; de facto doctrine could not validate its void proceedings.

A fresh constitution of a Regional Transport Authority by later Gazette notification displaced the earlier authority immediately, so proceedings taken by the superseded body were void for lack of jurisdiction. The de facto doctrine did not cure the defect because it applies to defective incumbency, not to acts done after the office itself had ceased to exist. A further direction requiring fresh route-amendment applications was inconsistent with the earlier remand, which had already fixed the scope of consideration. Defective publication of notice inviting objections was material because it denied objectors the statutory opportunity to respond. The impugned remand order was substantially maintained, subject to correction of the unnecessary requirement for fresh applications.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Regional Transport Authority's proceedings of 16 October 1981 were invalid because the authority had been superseded by a later notification constituting it with a different member; (ii) whether the de facto doctrine could validate the impugned decision of an authority lacking initial jurisdiction; (iii) whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in directing the petitioners to make fresh applications for amendment of the route in the remanded proceedings; and (iv) whether the applications were liable to fail for defective publication of notice inviting objections.

Issue (i): whether the Regional Transport Authority's proceedings of 16 October 1981 were invalid because the authority had been superseded by a later notification constituting it with a different member.

Analysis: Under Section 44(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, a Regional Transport Authority comes into existence only upon constitution by notification, and the later notification of 14 October 1981 created a new authority in law. The earlier authority constituted on 29 July 1981 ceased to have jurisdiction when the later notification became effective. The fact that the later notification reached the office after the meeting date did not preserve the earlier authority's jurisdiction, because publication in the Official Gazette is effective publication and the old authority cannot continue once superseded.

Conclusion: The proceedings of 16 October 1981 were void for want of jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): whether the de facto doctrine could validate the impugned decision of an authority lacking initial jurisdiction.

Analysis: The de facto doctrine protects acts of a holder of a validly created office whose title is defective, but it does not apply where the very office or authority itself has ceased to exist or where initial jurisdiction is absent. Since the earlier Regional Transport Authority had lost legal existence after the later notification, those acting under the old notification were not merely defective incumbents but persons without authority to act.

Conclusion: The de facto doctrine did not validate the impugned decision.

Issue (iii): whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in directing the petitioners to make fresh applications for amendment of the route in the remanded proceedings.

Analysis: The earlier remand order had already finalised the direction that the applications were to be considered for inclusion of the portion between Bhootpuri and Jaspur. That direction bound both the authority and the parties. In that situation, a further requirement that the petitioners file formal applications for amendment of the route was inconsistent with the earlier final remand direction.

Conclusion: The direction requiring fresh applications was and could not stand.

Issue (iv): whether the applications were liable to fail for defective publication of notice inviting objections.

Analysis: The first notification allowed objections within 15 days, while the later corrigendum was issued after that period and did not itself reopen the objection period. The publication therefore deprived intending objectors of the statutory opportunity to object, and the defect in publication was material.

Conclusion: The finding of defective publication was correct.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed in substance, and the impugned remand order was maintained, save for the correction regarding the unnecessary direction to file fresh applications.

Ratio Decidendi: When a statutory authority is superseded by a fresh valid constitution under the governing statute, the earlier authority loses jurisdiction immediately upon effective publication of the later notification, and the de facto doctrine cannot validate acts done without such jurisdiction.

---