R.C. Patnaik, J.@mdashAn identical question is involved in these two writ applications -- one filed by the petitioner seeking a permit and the other by the State Transport Authority -- they are taken up together and are disposed of by this judgment.
The petitioner in O.J.C. No. 2614/91 applied for a temporary permit for the route Gania -- Cuttack in respect of his vehicle bearing registration number OSK 1805. The same was rejected by the Transport Commissioner-cum-Chairman, State Transport Authority by order dated 5-2-91, as per Annexure-4, which reads as follows:
"When there is arrear outstanding against this vehicle, we shall not issue any permit even if there is stay order in the appeal case. The stay order stops the Taxing authority from collecting the tax dues. But the authority issuing permit must take into account the tax payment conduct of the operator. As his tax payment conduct is found to be not good, we shall not issue permit."
The petitioner aggrieved by the said order as per Annexure-4, filed M. A. Appeal No. 42 of 1991 and by order dated 9-4-91, the Tribunal vacated the order dated 5-2-91 and directed the State Transport Authority to grant temporary permit.
2. The petitioner thereafter moved the Secretary, State Transport Authority for the grant of temporary permit but no action was being taken on some plea or the other and ultimately, the petitioner was told that the decision of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal as per Annexure-6 has been impugned by the State Transport Authority. Hence, no permit could be granted until disposal of the said matter by this Court. That is how the two matters are now before us.
3. It is not disputed that aggrieved by the order of the Taxing Authority raising demand as per Annexure-1, the petitioner preferred M. V. Appeal No. 2/91 and by order dated 28-1-91 as per Annexure-2, the appellate authority has stayed the realisation of the demand until disposal of the appeal and the appeal is pending disposal, as stated at the Bar. The question, therefore, is if having regard to the order of stay passed by the appellate authority u/s 18 of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975, it was open to the Chairman, State Transport Authority discharging the powers vested in him u/s 71 of the Motor Vehicles Act to deny the grant of permit on the ground that the performance of the applicant was not satisfactory as a stage carriage operator as regards payment of tax.
4. We may observe that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner-cum-Chairman, State Transport Authority is solely based upon the liability of the petitioner towards tax imposed under the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act,
We are living in a country governed by rule of law. Therefore, law has to be respected and an order passed by an appropriate authority vested with jurisdiction to exercise power has to be respected until his decision has been vacated, modified by an authority prescribed by law. So long as the order of the appellate authority under the Taxation Act as per Annexure-2 remained in force and had not been altered or set aside, rule of law obligated that that should be respected because it is not contended that order is without jurisdiction and, therefore, void.
5. The demand raised is not necessarily sacrosanct. Mistakes might have been committed; there might have been illegality in the demand. The aggrieved party has preferred an appeal. That appeal is pending disposal. The demand may be confirmed; it could be that the demand would be nullified. But there is an order of stay in operation. Hence, until the stay order was vacated and the applicant was thereafter in default, it could not be held that he was a person in default as regards payment of tax so as to be considered as a person whose performance as regards payment of tax was unsatisfactory under the provisions of Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (d) of Sub-section (3) of Section 71 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
6. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the S. T. A. contended that the order of the appellate authority granting stay was subject to revision u/s 19 of the Taxation Act. No doubt that is so. But until the revisional authority exercises jurisdiction and vacates the order, or stays that order, the order passed by the appellate authority subsists and governs the rights and liabilities of the parties. Not until it is modified or vacated, can it be ignored. We, therefore, see no error in the order passed by the Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal passed the order on 9-4-91. It was not open to the Transport Authority to ignore the same. The Transport Authority as well as the Tribunal are creatures of the statutes. Until the law is amended and jurisdiction of the Tribunal has been taken away, it behoved all authorities to respect the order of the Tribunal. For, there would be collapse of rule of law if one authority ignores the direction given by another authority competent to give direction. Therefore, there ought not to have been any delay at the level of the State Transport Authority in implementing the direction given by the Tribunal. It was open to the aggrieved party to move this Court as expeditiously as possible and seek relief but it was not open to a subordinate authority to ignore the direction issued by the Tribunal. With the aforesaid observation and direction, both the writ applications are disposed of. No costs.
D.M. Patnaik, J.
7. I agree.
