SARJOO PROSAD, C. J. - (1.)THE petitioners in this case have applied for a writ of certiorari, quashing the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority dated 28th/29th Oct. , 1960 and also for an appropriate direction to the said authority for renewal of their permits.
(2.)THESE 27 petitioners are operators of stage carriages on the Jaipur-Alwar route; having a permit each granted by the Regional Transport Authority. For the sake of convenience they may be split up into two groups. The permits of the first 21 of these petitioners were to expire on 31st October, 1959. They filed applications under sec. 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter called the Act) within the period allowed by the law for renewal of their permits for a further period of three years. THESE applications were published in two instalments on the loth and 24th of September, 1959, but there was no objection received to the renewal which they claimed. Yet their applications were kept pending. On 24th June, 1951 the State Transport Authority appears to have issued some instructions to the Regional Transport Authorities directing them to postpone grant of permits or not to renew permits in view of the impending scheme for nationalization of State transport. Later a circular appears to have been issued by the State Transport Authority also prohibiting the renewal of permits because of the contemplated nationalisation scheme. In view of the circular presumably nothing further was done regarding the applications of renewal of permits filed by these petitioners and on the 1st November, 1959 temporary permits were granted to them, for a period of three months only which were due to expire by 31st January, 1960. In the meantime on the 17th December, 1959 certain rules of nationalisation of road transport by the State were published under chapter 4a of the Act. Again the applications for renewal of the permits remained pending and the Regional Transport Authority on the 1st February, 1960 i. e. after the expiry of the temporary permits, which had been issued to the petitioners, issued some kind of temporary authorisation permitting them to continue to operate on the route in question. ; Eventually on the 26/27th February, 1960 at a meeting of the Regional Transport Authority the applications for renewel were rejected, but to meet the needs of traffic again temporary permits were granted to the petitioners with retrospective effect from 1st February, 1960, valid for a period of another four months upto 31st May, 1960. All this dubious procedure appears to have been adopted by the Regional Transport Authority in view of the impending scheme of nationalisation, the rules whereof had been published by the Government. In the meantime on 10th May, 1960 the Rules framed and published by the State Government under chapter 4a of the Act were held illegal and void by this Court; and on 26th May, 1960 this Court on a petition for writ filed by some of these petitioners set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority dated 26th February, 1960, refusing to renew the permits of the petitioners and directed the said authority to decide the question of renewal according to law.
The learned Judge who made the order observed that the Authority should recons-ider the applications for renewal after observing the principles of natural justice and after giving every available information to the petitioner about the alleged scheme of nationalisation of transport service. When the matter went back, the Regional Transport Authority instead of disposing of the applications for renewal of permits according to law, again postponed its decision on the point and directed temporary authorisation to the petitioners to carry on the transport business. This was done on 2nd June, 1960. On 4th June, 1960 fresh draft rules were published in respect of the scheme of nationalisation of road transport under chapter 4 A of the Act. On the 22nd June, 1960 the Regional Transport Authority purported to have a meeting for consideration of the pending applications but that meeting was postponed and a meeting appears to have been held on the 25th June, 1960, in which resolution No. 219 of 1960 was passed by the Regional Transport Authority, (Ex. 7 ). By that time the temporary authorisation had also expired on the 22nd June, 1960 and since operators had no authority under which they could ply their vehicles, the Regional Transport Authority again this time instead of disposing of their applications for renewal, which in our opinion could have been easily done by that authority much earlier, postponed the same. It merely observed that the consideration of the renewal applications was likely to take some time and, therefore need of traffic for the intervening period, till the renewal applications fell to be decided in due course. We are unable to understand why there should have been any such delay in the disposal of the renewal application against which there were no objections, when they had been pending since long; and why from time to time the Regional Transport Authority was shelving the matter by issuing temporary permits or temporary authorisation as it was pleased to call these permits in order to enable them to ply their vehicles on the route. On the face of the order itself it appears that some of these operators have been operating on the route under permanent permits since 1953-54. The above resolution (Ex. 7) further shows that the traffic had considerably increased with the all round development of the routes. Again this time the Regional Transport Authority granted temporary stage carriage permits for three months or till the disposal of the renewal applications whichever was earlier. It also granted new twenty one stage carriage temporary permits on the route valid for three months to the Rajasthan State Roadways Undertaking, which was a Government concern. Presumably this was done in view of the observation made by the Authority that traffic had considerably increased on the route. Thus, again the petitioners were left in the unhappy and embarassing position of suspended animation, in that their applications for renewal were not decided and kept in cold-storage and another temporary authorisation for a period of 3 months was granted. We are informed that thereafter several meetings of the Regional Transport Authority were called, for instance on 28th June, 1960 and 30th July, 1960; but again these meetings were postponed and consideration of the applications for renewal was not taken up. A meeting came to be held on 16/17th August, 1960 of the Regional Transport Authority but curiously enough these applications for renewal were not put on the agenda. At this stage it will be useful to notice the case of the other batch of six petitioners whose permits were due to expire on the 21st October, 1960. They also filed applications for renewal of their permits in due course. It is to be noticed that during this period on 19th Aug. , 1960 fresh rules for the nationalisation scheme under chapter 4a of the Act were published as finalised. Till then it does not appear that the Rajasthan State Roadways,to whom 21 stage carriage permits had been ordered to be granted as early as on 25th June, 1960 on the assumption that traffic had considerably increased actually availed itself of these permits. It did not apply for these permits until 6th Sept. , 1960. On 8th Sept. , 1960 the scheme for nationalisation was published and on 9th Sept. , 1960 these petitioners presented an application to the Regional Transport Authority pressing for consideration of their applications for renewal. They complained that although in May, 1960 the matter had been remitted by this Court for reconsideration, yet no attention was paid to their applications for renewal and they prayed that the applications for renewal of permits may be taken up at the ensuing meeting of the said Transport Authority. On 14th September, 1960 there was a meeting of that body, but the petitioners' applications for renewal were not considered even in that meeting. Another meeting of the Regional Transport Authority was to beheld on 24th September, 1960 and the venue fixed for this meeting was at Jaipur. The notice for the meeting appears to have been issued only 2 days earlier. Suddenly the venue of this meeting was changed from Jaipur to Ajmer. The petitioners naturally complained about the change, but they did not want any adjournment of the matter. For obvious reasons they could not, because their temporary permits were about to expire on the 26th, yet the Regional Transport Authority on that complaint adjourned the meeting for another date. Meanwhile on 8th October, 1960 the time for filing objections to the nationalisation scheme which had been published already was over. On 14th October, 1960 this Court at the instance of another party issued a rule calling upon the Regional Transport Authority to show cause as to why the applications for renewal which were then pending had not been considered and disposed of and then on 28/29th October, 1960 the renewal applications were taken up and rejected by the order which is now in question before us.

We may observe here that in a recent Full Bench decision, this Court held that the effect of the proviso to sec. 62 is that a temporary permit can be granted only once in respect of the route or area specified in the application for renewal of a permit during the pendency of an application for renewal and that thereafter the transport authority has no jurisdiction to issue any further temporary permit or authorisation. The law contemplates that during the terminus-a-quo the applications for renewal must be disposed of and renewals granted to the operators unless there was any valid objection to the same. Thus all these temporary permits which had been issued from time to time, except those which were issued for first time were held to be without jurisdiction; and finally on nth November, 1960 the temporary permits granted to the petitioners were struck down by this Court as being illegal. As a result of that decision temporary permits issued to the Rajasthan State Roadways also became illegal. The Government, however, published the Motor [vehicles (Rajasthan Amendment) Ordinance, 1960, on 25th November, 1960. The Ordinance provides under sec. 4 that, notwithstanding the order or decision of any Court, temporary permits granted by the Regional Transport Authority in the State under sec. 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the coming into force of the Ordinance should be deemed to have been validly and lawfully granted. We do not reproduce the provision, since it has not been challenged before us and it is hardly necessary to comment upon the validity or otherwise of the various sections of the Ordinance itself. It may be sufficient to say that even if full effect is given to the provisions of the Ordinance it can only mean that temporary permits granted to the Rajasthan State Roadways can be held to be valid until the date of its expiry i. e. till 5th December, 1960. Therefore the position at present is that the petitioners cannot operate on the route for lack of any valid authority to do so; their applications for renewal having been rejected the temporary permits issued in their favour having already expired. So far as the Rajasthan State Roadways is concerned even if full effect is given to the Ordinance, on the 5th December, 1960, the temporary permits granted to it also expired, thus creating a complete vacuum of motor transport on the route.

On the above facts the petitioners challenge the order of the Regional Transport Authority on the ground that there is a clear mala fide on the part of the Transport Authority in declining to deal with the applications for renewal and postponing their consideration from time to time until their disposal by the order in question; and all this has happened despite the mandate of the law and the specific directions of this Court. It is further argued that the ground given by the said Transport Authority is illegal on the face of it, as the circumstances indicate that there is no chance of the Rajasthan State Roadways Undertaking operating on the route in the very near future under the scheme of nationalisation, while already motor vehicular traffic on the route stands almost paralysed, which is contrary to the very object of sec. 47 of the Act and the interest of the public. The contention is that the Regional Transport Authority being a quasi judicial tribunal should not have conducted itself in a partisan spirit so as to deprive the petitioners of their legitimate rights of having their applications renewed, on the off chance that on some future date the Rajasthan State Roadways Undertaking will come to ply its vehicles on the route under scheme of nationalisation of road transport. It is contended that the law never contemplates a vacuum in vehicular transport on the route in question and the considerations laid down in sec. 47 of the Act are primarily in the interest of the public and for facilities of their transport which have been completely denied in the present instance. We have given our anxious consideration to the facts emerging out of the application and the complaint made by the petitioners and we think that these complaints are to a large extent justified. The narration of the facts itself will make it obvious that there was no real or valid justification for the Regional Transport Authority for postponing consideration of the applications for renewal of permits from time to time, inspite of the repeated efforts of the petitioners to have their applications heard and disposed of in due course. It is regrettable that although in its order the Regional Transport Authority purported to dispose of these applications in due course yet that due course was never adopted. On the contrary every time that the applications could be considered and disposed of, the Regional Transport Authority shelved the matter. The circumstances stated earlier present a sorry spectacle and the manner in which these applications have been dealt with do not reflect any credit on a body like the Regional Transport Authority, undoubtedly a quasi judicial body, constituted to deal with the applications under the statute with fairness and impartiality.

The learned Government Advocate has endeavoured to support the order of the Regional Transport Authority rejecting the applications for renewal, on certain observations of this Court made in General Motor Bus Service, Jaipur Vs. The Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur (1) where this Court held that the State Transport Authority could validly issue under sec. 44 (3) of the Act a direction to the Regional Transport Authority not to issue non-temporary permits along a particular route in view of the consideration of a proposal to nationalise certain routes. The case has several distinctive features. In that case the only point which appears to have been canvassed was whether a direction of that kind could be issued under sec. 44 (3) of the Act by the State Transport Authority to the Regional Transport Authority and it was held that such a direction could be validly issued. Secondly it was a case which related to the grant of a new permit on the route. The considerations which apply to the grant of new permits must need be somewhat different from those which apply to renewal of permits already given to persons operating on the route and carrying on the business of transport. Thirdly, it was found that the route was adequately served by two sets of stage carriages as well as by the Railway and so it could not be said that the public would be seriously inconvenienced by the absence of any other stage carriage running on the route. Under those circumstances the application was rejected. The facts disclosed in this case are entirely different. Here we find that as a result of the action or rather inaction of the Regional Transport Authority a vacuum has been created on the route, inspite of the fact as admitted by that body that traffic had considerably increased on the route. The learned Government Advocate further contends that it was open to the Regional Transport Authority to take into consideration the fact that there was every probability of the route being nationalised under the scheme of nationalisation which had been already published and when the date for the final objections to the scheme had already expired. He also submits that the considerations which apply to the grant of new permits apply with equal force to the renewal of permits. Sec. 47 of the Act lays down the various considerations which have to be kept in view by the Regional Transport Authority in granting stage carriage permits. The first and the primary consideration is the interest of the public in general. Then comes the advantages to the public of the service to be provided including the saving of time likely to be effected thereby and any inconvenience from journeys not being broken. Clause (c) is the relevant clause which has been specially pressed in aid of the argument that the Regional Transport Authority has to consider the adequacy of other passenger transport services operating or likely to operate in [the near future, whether by road or other means, between the places to be served. Special stress has been laid upon the words "other passenger transport services likely to operate in the near future". The contention of the learned Government Advocate is that the road transport service of the Rajasthan State Roadways Undertaking was likely to operate in the near future under the above scheme of nationalisation and this consideration lawfully weighed with the Regional Transport Authority in rejecting the applications for renewal by the petitioners. In our opinion there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the assumption that the Rajasthan State Roadways Undertaking is likely to operate in the very near future. All that has happened is that the scheme has been published but the State Government does not appear to have taken act on under sec. 68 (D) of the Act and even after the Government have taken action thereunder, the Rajasthan State Roadways Undertaking will still have to make an application within the period provided in sec. 57 (2) of the Act, as laid down in G. Nageshwar Rao Vs. A. P. S. R. T. Corpn. (2 ). This will have to be done not less than six weeks before the date on which it is desired that the permits should be issued. So there is bound to be still considerable delay before the Rajasthan State Roadways Undertaking is likely to operate on the route. In the meantime public interest which was intended to be served is likely to suffer a great deal on account of the vacuum which has been created as a result of the attitude of the Regional Transport Authority in refusing to deal with the applications of the petitioner in due course. It is, therefore, a misnomer to suggest that there was the adequacy of another passenger transport service likely to operate in the near future as envisaged by clause (1) (c) of sec. 47 of the Act. The Regional Transport Authority in its order has expatiated upon the comparative merits of transport business likely to be carried on by the Rajasthan State Roadways Undertaking on the one hand and that by private parties like the petitioners on the other. Perhaps, so far as this aspect of the matter is concerned the Regional Transport Authority may have ample justification for its observations; but then what the Authority had to consider was whether it would serve the interest of the public at all in rejecting the applications of the petitioners at this stage on the erroneous assumption that the Rajasthan State Roadways Undertaking was likely to operate on the route in the near future, thereby creating a void of transport on the route.

The learned Government Advocate has further contended that the petitioners have no such right in the renewal of permits as to obtain a writ from this Court. He contended that the question of renewal of permit stands on the same footing as the grant of a new permit and the considerations which have to be kept in view under sec. 47 of the Act in making the grant of a new permit apply with equal force to the case of renewal of permit. He urges that the Regional Transport Authority, was, therefore, competent to reject the applications of the petitioners on the ground of likelihood of another transport operating on the route. We have already dealt with this aspect of the matter. The refusal to renew the permits does interfere with the petitioners' right to carry on trade and business as guaranteed under the Constitution. Any such interference with the petitioners' right could be upheld only on valid and reasonable grounds. We again desire to point out that applications for renewal cannot be treated on the same footing for all purposes as applications for grant of new permits. Renewal itself implies that the permit, if renewed, is a continuation of the earlier permit; and all other conditions being equal the law provides under sec. 58 of the Act that preference will have to be given to the applications for renewal over applications for new permits. The decision of the Supreme Court in V. C. K. Bus Service Vs. R. T. Authority (3) is a decision in point. It was observed in that case that when there is a renewal the effective period is the period up 10 which the renewal is granted; that indicates that the life of the renewed permit is one and continuous. In its impugned order the Regional Transport Authority appears to have made some comments about the want of certain particulars in the applications for renewal. It is observed that under sec. 46 of the Act certain particulars have to be given, namely, the number of vehicles intended to be kept in reserve to maintain the service and to provide for special occasions; and the arrangements intended to be made for the housing and repair of the vehicles, for the comfort and convenience of passengers and for the storage and the safe custody of luggage. It is complained that these particulars were not there in the renewal applications before them. We regret to say that there is some misapprehension on the point. In the first place all these particulars are not to be mentioned in each and every application. For instance, where a permit is required for a particular vehicle, the number of vehicles intended to be kept in reserve need not be mentioned. These particulars are to be mentioned only to the extent that the exigences of the case may require; but in this case it must be remembered that the applications were for renewal of permits only and no such particulars need have been given at all. Secondly, the law does not provide for such particulars being mentioned in applications for renewal. We may examine the relevant rules on the point. They are Rules 83,84 and 95. Rule 83 relates to the prescribed forms in which applications for permits have to be made. We do not find that any particular form is prescribed under that rule for an application for renewal of permit. Rule 84 relates to forms of permits. Here again there is no form prescribed for renewal of permits. Rule 95 is the relevant rule which applies to the case of renewal of permits. All that it requi-is that the application for renewal of permit shall be made in writing to the Regional Transport Authority by which the permit was issued within a terrain period; it is to be accompanied by Part A of the permit and should state the period for which the renewal is desired and should also be accompanied by the fee prescribed under Rule 89. The comment, therefore, that the applications for renewal were defective in as much as certain particulars were not mentioned in them is erroneous on the face of it.

The only ground which has been given by the Regional Transport Authority for rejecting the applications for renewal, as we pointed earlier, is the consideration about the likelihood of the Rajasthan State Roadways operating on the line in the near future. This consideration as we have shown is not a valid consideration in the circumstances governing the present case, and obviously due to this erroneous assumption, a vacuum in the transport service has been created by the order of the Regional Transport Authority. Whatever, therefore, the position may be in regard to other routes, we find that in the circumstances of the present case the order of the Regional Transport Authority cannot be up-held. We have already observed that it was due to the conduct of the Regional Transport Authority itself in not disposing of the applications for renewal in due course that this unfortunate situation has arisen; and therefore, find no alternative but to quash the order by a writ of certiorari.

The question then arises is what further orders should be passed and whether we should give a positive direction to the Regional Transport Authority to renew the permits in favour of the petitioners. We realise that if the matter were left to the Regional Transport Authority again there may be delay in disposing of the applications and a repetition of the old story. We are not surprised that in view of the attitude adopted by the Regional Transport Authority in dealing with the applications for renewal, the petitioners feel lack of confidence in inducing the Regional Transport Authority to dispose of their applications in time. No one suggests that the petitioners have necessarily a right to compensation but if the law contemplates that compensation may be given to them there is no reason why objectionable methods should be adopted to defeat the intention of the law. We can understand rejection of applications for renewal on some other valid grounds, for instance if there was a case of corrupt practice, or causing inconvenience to the public, or some other misconduct on the part of the operators. In all such cases the permits could be validly cancelled; or even if their vehicles were not road-worthy, their applications for renewal could be refused. On such refusal no one could be heard to say that he was thereby deprived of any compensation that the law may have intended to be payable to persons operating on a particular route as a result of the route being nationalised. No objection has been raised against the petitioners on any of those grounds. Therefore, there was absolutely no justification for the Regional Transport Authority to go on postponing consideration of the matter by granting illegal temporary permits or authorisations and then ultimately rejecting their applications on the assumption that there was likelihood of the Rajasthan State Roadways Undertaking operating on the route in the near future.

(3.)THE learned Government Advocate has appealed to us on the ground that the renewal of the permits would entail payment of a heavy amount of compensation to the various operators. That may be so. If the statute, in all fairness, has provided that certain persons should be entitled to the payment of compensation, why should the court or even a quasi judicial tribunal like the Regional Transport Authority adopt questionable methods to defeat such rights Courts of law or even Tribunals exist to guard against any such contingency and not to defeat the legitimate rights of the people. We verily believe that even the Government which is responsible not only for the efficiency of its administration and for the protection of legitimate rights, but also for setting up a high standard of rectitude and fair play in its dealings with the people would not countenance any such procedure.
We, therefore, think that it would be no use sending back these applications for reconsideration by the Regional Transport Authority. Under Article 226 of the Constitution it is open to us to issue appropriate directions and we feel that in the circumstances of this case we would be justified in issuing a direction forthwith to the Regional Transport Authority to renew the permits of these petitioners for the requisite period under the law, subject of course to the permits being terminated in case the Rajasthan State Roadways Undertaking comes to operate on the line and subject to the conditions mentioned in chapter 44 of the Act. A similar procedure was adopted by Mehrotra J. in Mohd. Raihan Vs. State of U. P. (4) and we find ourselves in agreement with that learned judge.

The writ application is, therefore, allowed with costs and the Rule is made absolute. The renewal should be with effect from the date on which the permits of these petitioners expired. We allow Rs. 100/- as costs to the petitioners. .

;