KHANDARI BABU Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY UDAIPUR REGION UDAIPUR AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by one Khandari Babu, son of Kilu Mal, of Kotah city, against the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur Region, and Messrs. Ratan Singh Awat Ram.

(2.) Briefly the case of the petitioner is that he owns bus No. RJL 529, and holds a permit for plying it on Kotah-Deikhera-Khanpur route in Kotah and Jhalawar districts granted to him by the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur Region, that the petitioner, after getting his permit for plying stage carriage, spent about Rs. 1200/- in the repairing of the route in order to make it motorable, that the Regional Transport Authority Udaipur Region, in complete disregard of the provisions of Section 62, Motor Vehicles Act, on 3-10-1952 granted a temporary permit to Messrs. Ratan Singh Awat Ram, who are opposite party No. 2, which is to remain valid up to 31-12-1952, that the temporary permit of opposite party No. 2 is practically for the same route as that of the petitioner's permit, that the petitioner has been put to a considerable loss on account of the grant of temporary permit in favour of the opposite party No. 2, and that the order of the Regional Transport Authority granting a temporary permit in disregard of the provisions of Section 62, Motor Vehicles Act, is illegal. The petitioner prays that an appropriate writ or direction be issued setting aside the temporary permit issued by the opposite party No. 1, and restraining the opposite party No. 2 from plying the bus on Kotah-Khanpur route.

(3.) A reply has been filed on behalf of the Regional Transport Authority, and it is admitted that the petitioner holds a valid permit for plying his bus on KotahDeikhera- Khanpur route. It is further stated that a temporary permit was granted to the opposite party No. 2 in order to meet the necessity of the public at large, as one bus was not considered sufficient to meet the need of the traffic on the route covered by the permit of the petitioner. The action of the Regional Trans-port Authority in this behalf was based on the recommendation of the Gram Panchayats of that locality, e.g., Dhulet, Kanwas and Awa, and of one of the non-official members of the Regional Transport Authority. At the time the question of issuing temporary permit was considered by the Regional Transport Authority, the petitioner was also present, and he had opposed the proposed, action. Necessary steps for the grant of a non-temporary permit were taken, and in the meantime, in order to give relief to the travelling public, a temporary permit was issued. The action of the Regional Transport Authority in so acting was within the scope of their powers. The Regional Transport Authority, in order to further safeguard the interests of the petitioner, imposed restrictions on the temporary permit that the opposite party No. 2 would make only one trip per day, and would start his bus after the petitioner's bus had left the station. By these conditions the opposite party No. 2 was made to carry only such passengers as could not, travel by the bus of the petitioner. The petitioner, if he had felt aggrieved from the order of the Regional Transport Authority, should have gone in appeal, and as other remedy was open to him, he is not entitled to any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also stated in the reply that the petitioner came to court after much delay.