Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.
1. IA No. 2435 of 2008 has been filed by one Mohan Singh to intervene in this matter.
2. Heard the parties.
3. Intervention application is allowed. Mohan Singh, the intervener is deemed to be the respondent in this case. The intervention application brings on record various facts which are taken as a counter affidavit in the writ application.
4. On special mention by the petitioner, this matter was taken up under the heading For Orders considering the urgency of the matter. State has also filed a counter affidavit. Petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit and interlocutory application praying for interim relief. In the supplementary affidavit, petitioner seeks to challenge order dated 16/25.01.2008 passed by the Chairman of the State Transport Authority. By the said order, it has been directed that as proceedings for cancellation of grant of permit and cancellation of registration of the motor vehicle is contemplated and is under way, permit should not be issued.
5. Heard the parties and with their consent, the writ application is being disposed of at this stage itself.
6. Pursuant to advertisement issued by the State Transport Authority for grant of an inter state stage carriage permit, petitioner and intervener-respondent Mohan Singh applied. After due consideration, by order dated 18.07.2007, the petitioner was granted temporary inter state stage carriage permit. When, inspite of grant of permit, permit was not being issued, petitioned filed this writ application on 31.01.2008 praying, inter alia, for a writ of mandamus directing the State Transport Authority to issue permit pursuant to the grant thereof. During pendency of the writ application, the petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit annexing the order of the Chairman of the State Transport Authority dated 16/25.01.2008 wherein the Chairman has passed a detailed order as to why permit is not being issued to the petitioner. This order is subsequently challenged. In this order, authorities have taken note of the fact that when petitioner responded to the advertisement for grant of inter state stage carriage permit he submitted his application on basis of a registration granted under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act showing the year of manufacture of his vehicle as 2006. The intervener-respondent brought on record the fact that the petitioner had purchased the bus chassis in the year 2005 under temporary registration in his name. Subsequently, he got a permanent registration in West Bengal after bus body was built thereon and here the year of manufacture was changed to 2006 ostensibly on the ground that even though the chassis was purchased in the year 2005, the body thereon was built in 2006. This, the State Transport Authority has now noticed and found to be inappropriate conduct on part of petitioner. Because of this inappropriate conduct, the authority intended to cancel the grant itself but being aware of the provisions of Section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, they noted that such an action could not be taken without due notice to the parties and, as such, withheld issuance of permit. The intervener-respondent submits that the grant of permit was based on a material misrepresentation of fact later discovered by the authorities and, as such, authorities were well within their jurisdiction to withhold issuance of permit consequent to such a grant based on misrepresentation.
7. Having heard the parties, in my view, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present proceedings. Firstly on 18.07.2007, petitioner was granted temporary permit which, in terms of Section 87 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is itself valid for a period of four months. That being so, by operation of law, the grant of permit itself lapsed on expiry of four months that is with effect from 18.11.2007. Once the grant itself lapsed, there is no question of issuance of permit under the said grant which became non-existent. Secondly, the competent authority after the grant of permit was made aware that the grant was obtained on material misrepresentation of fact. The authorities prima facie being satisfied are now enquiring into the matter. Therefore, the grant itself was under serious dispute and cloud. Therefore, this Court would not pre-empt the action of the authorities by issuing mandamus to issue permit when grant itself is under question mark.
8. Mr. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the writ application submits that there was no material misrepresentation of fact inasmuch as though the chassis was purchased in the year 2005 and received by the petitioner under his temporary registration the permit registration was granted in the year 2006 and, as such, in the registration certificate, the year of manufacture was rightly mentioned as 2006. Before dealing with the relevance of this, one must notice the importance thereof. The State Transport Authority, while deciding the competitive applications by various persons for grant of limited number of permits, has to evaluate the cases on a comparative merit basis. One of the important considerations is how new is the vehicle or the age of the vehicle. Here the year of manufacture becomes of prime importance and by advancing the year of manufacture a person gains advantage over others. This is the importance of year of manufacture in such matters.
9. It is not disputed that the chassis was manufactured in the year 2005 and it is the bus chassis that was purchased by the petitioner on his own temporary registration in the year 2005. Once this fact is established and admitted then the year of manufacture cannot change because a bus chassis is as much motor vehicle as chassis with a bus body built thereon. If, for example, what Mr. Singh, the learned Senior Counsel submits is correct then on a ten years' old bus chassis a new body is built that will become a new vehicle. It will remain to be a ten years' old vehicle. Chassis is the very foundation on which the structure is built and the age will be according to the foundation and not the structure thereon subsequently made. Thus, on the admitted fact, it is apparent that there was serious misrepresentation in regard to the year of manufacture and that given full jurisdiction to the State Transport Authority to withdraw the grant which even otherwise had lapsed.
10. Thus, in my view, no relief can be granted to the writ petitioner. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.