TIKAM CHAND Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have before me 10 writ petitions which arise out of or pertain to a resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur dated 8th to 11th May, 1967, granting permits one each to respondents Nos. 2 to 4 in writ petition No. 364 of 1967, that is, Tikamchand v. Regional Transport Authority and others. It appears that there were a number of applications pending before the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur for grant of permit over the route Udaipur -Kota via Fatehnagar, Kapasani Chittorgarh, Begun, Mandalgarh, Bijolia Neleshwar, Dabi. Petitioner Tikamchand was also an applicant for grant of a permit over this route. He has approached this Court challenging this resolution inter alia on the ground that his application was not simultaneously considered and disposed of along with the applications of respondents Nos. 2 to 4 to whom the Regional Transport Authority granted the permits. Petitioner Gopal Das in writ petition No 542 of 1967, who was an existing operator on a portion of the route, has approached this Court and his grievance is that he filed objections against the applications and the Regional Transport Authority's meeting on 12th to 15th April, 1967, at which the matter is alleged to have been heard and considered, was not properly held. Also, according to him, the alleged meeting of the Regional Transport Authority at which the impugned resolution was passed could not have been held at Jaipur. These two writ petitions were filed in this Court in 1967. Some of the applicants to whom the Regional Transport Authority had not granted the permits had gone in appeal to the Transport Appellate Tribunal. The Transport Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 17 -12 -1968 (Annexure -12) had set aside the impugned resolution of the Regional Transport Authority and had consequently cancelled the permits granted to respondents Nos. 2 to 4 in writ petition No. 364 of 1967. The three erstwhile grantees of permits had come to this Court for challenging the appellate order of the Transport Appellate Tribunal 17 -12 -1968. These are writ petitions Nos. 15 of 1969, 39 of 1969. dated 4 of 1969, 1 of 1969 and 2 of 1969. The remaining two writ petitions are by Messrs. Jay Bharat Bus Service and Shankerlal, writ petitions Nos, 48 of 1969 and 85 of 1969 respectively. These petitioners were the successful appellants before the Transport Appellate Tribunal, but they felt aggrieved of a part of the order of the Transport Appellate Tribunal in that while remanding the case the Transport Appellate Tribunal directed that the applications of the appellants as also of the grantees whose permits were cancelled be considered along with other applications. It is contended that such of the applicants to whom permits were refused by the Regional Transport Authority and who had not gone in appeal to the Transport Appellate Tribunal could no longer claim consideration of their applications since they stand already rejected and they had not gone in appeal against such order of rejection. It will be convenient to narrate the relevant facts with reference to Tikam Chand's writ petition.

(2.) TIKAM Chand applied for grant of permit over this route on 14 -12 -1965. He claims that he was the first person who had applied for the opening of this new route. Like the petitioner some other persons also subsequently applied for grant of permits. Such applications were published in the Rajasthan Gazette in March, 1966 for inviting objections. The petitioner proceeds to say that no objections or representations at all were made by anyone against his application. A meeting of the Regional Transport Authority was fixed for 15/16/17 -12 -1966 for the consideration of the applications The dates of the meeting were notified in the Rajasthan Gazette of 14 -11 -1966. The petitioner states that at this meeting the applications were not at all considered and it was announced by the Chairman that this route had been reserved for grant of alernative route permits to displaced operators of Udaipur Rikhabdeo, Udaipur -Ratanpur and Udaipur -Dungarpur routes. Pursuant to certain schemes of nationalisation, it was also declared that this route had already been offered to the displaced operators in accordance with Section 68G of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter to be referred as the ''Act' as also in accordance with the Rajasthan State Transport Services (Development) Rules, 1965, hereinafter to be referred as the 'Development Rules.'' It appears that on 4 -10 -1966, a notification was issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur under rule 10 of the Development Rules publishing the applications of the displaced operators of the nationalised routes and objections were invited within 15 days from the date of the publication of the notification. According to the petitioner, that it was the declared intention of the Regional Transport Authority to consider only the applications filed under Rule 10 of the Development Rules and it was not to consider the fresh applications like that of the petitioner. On 2 -2 -1967, the Regional Transport Authority notified that the remaining items of the agenda of the meeting fixed from 15th to 18th December, 1966 would be considered at a meeting to be held on 15th to 17th March, 1967. A notification was issued for this last mentioned meeting in which it was said that all the applications for grant of alternative route permits as well as the applications for grant of fresh permits would be considered. The petitioner states that he was present at the meeting held on 18th to 17tb March, 1967, but the Chairman announced that this route Udaipur -Kota was reserved for grant of alternative route permits to displaced operators. In other words, the stand of the petitioner is that the Regional Transport Authority did not hear the applicants for grant of fresh permits. It appears that the displaced operators of the three nationalised routes had filed writ petitions in this Court challenging the nationalisation schemes relating to their respective routes and the writ petitions were heard in the early part of 1967. The decision, however, was not pronounced for some -time. From 12 -4 -1967 to 15 -5 -1967 a meeting is said to have been held by the Regional Transport Authority at Udaipur. The petitioner submits that he had not received any intimation of that meeting, but somehow he happened to be present at the meeting and objection was raised by that no notification for holding the meeting had been issued and consequently the petitioner was taken unaware. The petitioner avers that even at this meeting the Chairman reiterated what he had said on the earlier meetings that the applications for grant of fresh permits would not be heard or considered until the matter relating to the grant of alternative route permits to displaced operators was disposed of. Petitioner further avers that at this meeting there was an uproar on account of certain persons making insinuations against the integrity of the Chairman and as a result of uproar and consequential disturbances the meeting has to be broken without transacting any business. Thus, according to the petitioner, the applications for grant of fresh permits or those for grant of alternative route permits were neither heard nor considered not decided at this meeting. The petititioner further states that it was subsequently notified by the Regional Transport Authority that the meeting was adjourned sine die and the agenda of the meeting would be notified later on in the Rajasthan Gazette. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of what had been declared at these meetings from time to time and there being no hearing or consideration of the application of the petitioner as also those of others a spurious meeting was held at Jaipur and without there being prior notification or information to the parties a resolution purports to have been passed for granting permits to respondent No. 4. It is in these circumstances that Tikam Chand questions the validity of the Regional Transport Authority's resolut on Annexure -8.

(3.) THE petitioner sought permission to add some more grounds to the writ petition. When the application for it came up for hearing it was ordered that it would be considered when the case itself is heard. The respondents have filed their reply to this application for permission to add certain new grounds. After hearing the case I felt convinced that since the new grounds are based on the proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority itself and are vital to a correct decision of the case, they should be allowed to be argued.