State Transport Authority lacked jurisdiction to grant permit for specific route; court rules in favor of petitioner.

The court held that the State Transport Authority lacked jurisdiction to grant a permit for a specific route, supporting the petitioner's claim in a dispute with an opposite party. The court emphasized that the authority did not have statutory jurisdiction over the route in question, ruling the permit grant as without jurisdiction. Additionally, the court dismissed the principle of estoppel raised by the opposite party, stating that a decree passed without jurisdiction cannot be validated by consent or estoppel. The court quashed the permit grant and the appellate decision, underscoring the fundamental principle that lack of jurisdiction nullifies any decree passed.

---

---

Issues: Jurisdiction of State Transport Authority to grant permit on a specific route, maintainability of writ petition challenging jurisdiction, validity of Rule 52-A of Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules, applicability of Section 44(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the principle of estoppel in challenging jurisdiction.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The case involves a dispute between a petitioner and an opposite party regarding the grant of a permit for a second bus on a specific route by the State Transport Authority. The petitioner operated a stage carriage on the route, and the State Transport Authority granted a permit to the opposite party for a second bus. The petitioner challenged this grant through a writ petition, questioning the jurisdiction of the State Transport Authority.

2. The main contention of the petitioner was that the State Transport Authority lacked jurisdiction to grant the permit for the route in question. The petitioner argued that the grant should be quashed on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction.

3. The opposite party argued that the petitioner was estopped from challenging the jurisdiction of the State Transport Authority due to prior actions taken by the petitioner, such as applying for the permit and submitting to the authority's jurisdiction.

4. The court decided to first address the issue of jurisdiction before considering the maintainability of the writ petition. The court examined Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which specifies the authority to which permit applications should be made and the jurisdiction of the State Transport Authority in such matters.

5. Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act clarifies the procedure for permit applications, stating that the authority to which the application is made should dispose of it. The court emphasized that there is no provision in the statute for applications to be made to one authority and disposed of by another.

6. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 45 in relation to the specific route in question, which covered areas in two separate districts. The court concluded that the State Transport Authority did not have statutory jurisdiction to invite applications for the route and grant the permit.

7. The court further examined Rule 52-A of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules, which provides for the disposal of matters relating to multiple Regional Transport Authorities by the State Transport Authority. The petitioner argued that this rule was ultra vires the statute, while the opposite party contended that it was within the legal framework.

8. The court rejected the argument that Rule 52-A justified the State Transport Authority's actions, emphasizing that the authority's jurisdiction was not established based on the rule.

9. Ultimately, the court held that the grant of the permit by the State Transport Authority was without jurisdiction, supporting the petitioner's claim.

10. Regarding the principle of estoppel raised by the opposite party, the court cited legal precedents to emphasize that a court decree passed without jurisdiction is a nullity and cannot be validated by consent or estoppel. The court dismissed the plea of estoppel and allowed the application, quashing the permit grant and the appellate decision upholding it.

11. The judgment highlighted the fundamental principle that lack of jurisdiction strikes at the authority of the court to pass any decree, and the conduct of the petitioner did not confer jurisdiction on the State Transport Authority. The court rejected the preliminary objection and ruled in favor of the petitioner, declaring the permit grant as an act without jurisdiction.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the legal issues involved and the court's reasoning in addressing each issue, culminating in the decision to quash the permit grant by the State Transport Authority.

---