SARDAR KULWANT SINGH Vs. APPELLATE AUTHORITY OF STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
LAWS(RAJ)-1955-1-40
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on January 27,1955

SARDAR KULWANT SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
APPELLATE AUTHORITY OF STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) THE Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur Region, invited applications for certain routes by a notification published in the Rajasthan Gazette of 5-1-1952, and again on 14-3-1953. One of the routes, for which applications for stage carriage were invited, was the Jaipur-Gangapur route 96 persons applied for stage carriage permits on this route. The Regional Transport Authority by its resolution dated 6-8-1953, granted 19 permits to 17 persons, and rejected the rest of the applications. Duli Chand, anand Ram Kabra, Amiruddin, Maya Betwal, Mahadeo Ghanshyam, and Bansilal govind Sahai filed six separate appeals to the Appellate Authority under Section 64, Clause (a), Motor Vehicles Act, urging that the refusal of permits to them by the Regional Transport Authority was erroneous, and that a permit for one stage carriage should be granted to each one of them. By two judgments of 8-5-1954, all the six appeals were accepted, and each one of the appellants was granted a permit for one stage carriage. Sardar Kulwant Singh, rahim-ud-din, and Asan Dass, three of the 17 persons, who were granted permits by the Regional Transport Authority, have filed this petition under Arts. 226 and 227, Constitution of India, challenging the validity of the order of the Appellate authority to grant permits to six persons aforesaid, who are respondents 3 to 8 in this petition.
(3.) IT is contended that 1. The grant of permit was in disregard of the provisions of Sections 47 and 48, Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 90 of the Rules made under the Act, in as much as according to the time-table framed by the Regional transport Authority 13 buses lie idle every day and it would be a national waste, if more permits were granted, which would involve purchase and maintenance of extra buses with no advantage to anybody; 2. the Appellate Authority did not apply its mind to the arguments advanced by either side, but if the order of the Appellate Authority meant whole sale acceptance of the arguments advanced by the non-petitioners, the order of the Appellate Authority was manifestly erroneous, inasmuch as, certain considerations, which would appear to have weighed-with the Appellate Authority should have been ruled; out. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.