SURENDRA KUMAR SHARMA Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY JAIPUR REGION
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
SURENDRA KUMAR SHARMA
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, JAIPUR REGION
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS writ application has been filed by Surendra Kumar Sharma under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorari or anv other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the non-temporary stage carriage permit granted to Chelaram respondent No. 2 by the Regional Transport authority. Jaipur by its resolution dated 4/5th and 7th August. 1967.
(2.) THE facts of this case are not in controversy and they are as follows: respondent No. 2 Chelaram applied for a non-temporary stage carriage permit on Beawar-Todgarh route on 29th January, 1966. That application was published in the Rajasthan Raj Patra by the Regional transport Authority on 14th April, 1966 and the Regional Transport authority granted a permit to the respondent on that route on 17th november. 1966. That order of the Regional Transport Authority was challenged in an appeal before the Transport Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the objections filed by the existing operators were not considered by the Regional Transport Authority. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, quashed the permit granted to respondent No. 2 on 31st May, 1967. Meanwhile, the petitioner had also filed suo motu an application for the grant of non-temporary stage carriage permit on the same route before the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur. This application of the petitioner was published in the Gazette on 5th january, 1967 and according to the allegations made by the petitioner, it became ripe for consideration by the Regional Transport Authority on 4th february. 1967. After the case of Chelaram was remanded by the Transport Appellate tribunal the Regional Transport Authority in its meeting to be held on 7th of August, 1967, put on the agenda the application of Chelaram for the grant of permit on the said route. Ths petitioner, when he came to know that the application of Chelaram was put on the agenda of the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority of 7th August, 1967, he applied to the Regional Transport Authority on 26th July, 1967, by means of Annexure 5 that his application which was ripe for consideration may also be considered along with the application of chelaram, but it so appears that the Regional Transport Authority did not pay any heed to the request of the petitioner. When the case of chelaram was taken up for consideration in the meeting of the Regional transport Authority on 7th August, 1967, petitioner again orally requested the Regional Transport Authority to deter the matter till the petitioner's application was also included in the agenda but the Regional transport Authority did not accede to this request of the petitioner and granted the permit to Chelaram. This resolution of the Regional transport Authority has been challenged by filing this writ application on the ground that the Regional Transport Authority in accordance with the pronouncements of this Court on various occasions could not have considered the application of Chelaram alone when other applications on the same route were ripe for consideration.
(3.) CHELARAM in his reply has not controverted the facts but his contention is that the rule laid down by this Court in various cases on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner, when read in the context of the circumstances in which the observations have been made by this court, mean only this thing that the later applications should not be considered without considering the earlier ones. According to Chelaram, the petitioner has a right to ask for the consideration of his application for the grant of permit under Section 57 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act but he cannot claim that his application should be considered along with the application of the respondent who had applied long before and who was also granted permit by the Regional Transport Authority before the petitioner had made his application for the grant of permit on this route. Mr. Jain appearing on behalf of Chelaram urged that none of these cases, which have been cited by Mr. Gupta on behalf of the petitioner containing the observations of this Court about the consideration of the applications under Section 57 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act can be taken as authority for the proposition that a later applicant can claim a right to have his application considered along with the earlier applicants. He also contended that in view of the fact that a permit had already been granted to the answering respondent as back as on 17th November, 1966 which was quashed by the Transport Appellate tribunal on account of the alleged error of the Regional transport Authority or its official, the petitioner cannot claim to stand in competition with the respondent by the mere fact that his application had become ripe at the time when the respondent's application came up for reconsideration of the Regional Transport Authority.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.