RAMESHWAR DAYAL SHARMA Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY GWALIOR
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
RAMESHWAR DAYAL SHARMA
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
Click here to view full judgement.
BHAVE J. -
(1.) ON 19-6-1967 and 27-7-1967 the petitioner applied for stage carriage permits before the Regional Transport Authority, Gwalior, on two routes, namely, Lashkar-Lahar and Seondha-Datia. ON 20-4-1968, the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa, invited applications under section 57 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act for the grant of permits on the aforesaid two routes. That Notification was published in the Madhya Pradesh Rajpatra dated 3-5-1968. The present petition is filed challenging the action of the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa, in inviting applications for the said two routes when the applications filed by the petitioner were already pending and were not disposed of. The petitioner has claimed a writ of certiorari for quashing the Notification dated 20-4-1968 and for a writ of mandamus directing the Regional Transport Authority to consider the petitioner's applications and such other applications, if, any, which were pending before that authority prior to the issuance of the notification.
(2.) WHEN the petition was admitted, Durga Prasad (respondent No. 2) and Sardar Dharam Singh (respondent No. 3) intervened. Their contention is that there was a ceiling order in operation when the petitioner had filed his applications for the said two routes. Unless the Regional Transport Authority pierced the ceiling, there was no occasion for the intervenes to file any applications ; nor could the Regional Transport Authority consider the applications of the petitioner without piercing the ceiling. The Regional Transport Authority, looking to the growing demand on the said routes, was, therefore, justified in issuing the impugned notification inviting applications. By this notification the Regional Transport Authority, for the first time, pierced the ceiling and hence all the applications filed after the notification could alone be considered and the petitioner's applications being premature are not fit to be considered by the Regional Transport Authority at all.
It is conceded before us by the petitioner that when his applications for the permits were filed, there was ceiling order in operation. If this is so, the impugned notification cannot be questioned. The Regional Transport Authority was, therefore, within its right in issuing the notification. It, therefore, follows that the petition must be dismissed. We, however, do not propose to decide in these proceedings as to whether the petitioner's applications for the permits were premature and whether they could be considered along with the applications of the interveners or any other persons who have applied in response to the impugned notification. That matter shall be decided by the Regional Transport Authority.
In the result, the petition is dismissed. We, however, direct that the parties shall bear their own costs. The security amount shall be refunded to the petitioner, after deducting the paper-book costs, if any. Petition dismissed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.