Jurisdiction cannot be created by consent: permit granted by an authority lacking statutory power was quashed.

The State Transport Authority lacked jurisdiction to invite and grant a permit for a route falling within two Regional Transport Authorities, because Section 45 required applications to be made to the appropriate Regional Transport Authority and no prior assumption of common-route functions under Section 44(3)(b) was shown. Rule 52-A of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules could not cure that absence of statutory authority, so the permit grant was void. The challenge was not barred by estoppel or submission to jurisdiction, since a defect going to the root of jurisdiction cannot be cured by consent, appearance, or acquiescence. The permit grant and appellate order were quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State Transport Authority had jurisdiction to invite and grant the permit for the route in question under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules. (ii) Whether the petitioner was precluded by estoppel or submission to jurisdiction from challenging the authority's competence in writ proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the State Transport Authority had jurisdiction to invite and grant the permit for the route in question under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules.

Analysis: Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act required applications for permits to be made to the appropriate Regional Transport Authority, and the route involved lay within the jurisdiction of two Regional Transport Authorities within the State. Section 44(3)(b) permitted the State Transport Authority to perform the duties of a Regional Transport Authority for a common route, but there was no material showing any prior decision by the State Transport Authority to assume such functions for this route. Rule 52-A of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules could not sustain the grant because, even on its terms, it did not validate the initial invitation and disposal of the application by the State Transport Authority in the absence of jurisdiction under the Act.

Conclusion: The grant of the permit by the State Transport Authority was without jurisdiction.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner was precluded by estoppel or submission to jurisdiction from challenging the authority's competence in writ proceedings.

Analysis: A defect going to the root of jurisdiction cannot be cured by consent, appearance, or acquiescence. The petitioner's participation in the proceedings did not confer jurisdiction on the State Transport Authority, and the facts did not establish any conduct amounting to personal estoppel sufficient to bar relief under writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection based on estoppel failed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned permit grant and the appellate order were quashed because the authority acted without jurisdiction, and the writ petition succeeded with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Jurisdiction fixed by statute cannot be conferred by consent or estoppel, and any administrative act taken without such jurisdiction is a nullity liable to be quashed.

---