Decided on December 21,1967


Cited Judgements :-



- (1.)THE petitioner, who is a cooperative society, is a bus operator and by this writ petition it seeks to question the validity of certain permits granted by the Regional transport Authority, Bikaner, in favour of respondents Nos. 3 to 10. It went up in appeal to the Transport Appellate Tribunal against the resolution of the Regional transport Authority, but was unsuccessful and consequently the order of the transport Appellate Tribunal dated 16-8-67 is also challenged. The relevant facts, as presented in the writ petition are briefly these:
(2.)THERE is a route known as Ganga-nagar-Karanpur via Arayan which is about 80 kilometres in length. Before the impugned resolution of the Regional Transport authority, there were 8 operators on this route who were having 11 return services. Out of the 11 return services, 10 were provided for the whole route and one was provided only between Ganpa-nagar and Arayan a distance of about 21 miles. By its resolution dated 26/ 27/28th November, 1962, the Regional transport Authority fixed the limit of 8 permits for the route in question in accordance with Section 47 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939, hereinafter to be referred as the "act". On 11-7-63, one of the 8 operators one Randhir Singh, applied for renewal of his permit. His application for renewal of the permit was published, but before it could be disposed of, fresh applications for grant of permits were made by respondents No. 3, Chamanlal, No. 4 Bahadur Singh, No. 5 munshilal and No. 6 Geegraj Sharma respectively. These applications were also published There were objections made by certain existing operators against the applications of these respondents. By its resolution dated 12/13th October, 1963, the Regional Transport Authority granted one permit to each of these respondent? the objector Randhir Singh Kirpal Singh went up in appeal to the Transport appellate Tribunal against the order grant-ing permits to these respondents, but the appeal was dismissed by the Transport Appellate Tribunal and the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority was upheld. Randhir Singh Kirpal Singh then lodged a writ petition in this Court challenging the resolution of the Regional transport Authority as upheld by the Transport Appellate Tribunal. The writ petition was eventually allowed and the resolution of the Regional Transport authority granting permits to the aforementioned respondents was quashed on the ground that as a limit for 8 permits had already been fixed by the Regional transport Authority, more per-mits could not have been granted. Thereafter, on 810-64 some 36 applications for grant of permits on the route were made before the Regional Transport Authority. Objections were filed against these applications by the existing operators on 16-10-64. Before these applications could be disposed of, 11 more applications were made for the grant of permits by certain other persons and they were published for inviting objections on 11-3-65. Against these applications also existing operators filed objections, thereafter, it appears that the Regional Transport Authority thought of revising the scope for permits over the route and it issued a notice for inviting objections in this behalf. Objections were received by the Regional Transport Authority regarding the scope on 2-6-64. (65?) On 30-10-65, the Regional Transport Authority considered the objections and revised the scope for permits from 8 to 16. Against this resolution of the Regional Transport Authority revising the scope the petitioner Guru Nanak Transport Co-operative Society Ltd. , as also some other objectors filed a revision application before the State Transport Authority. The petitioner submits that that revision application is still pending before the State transport Authority and has not been decided. It has been pointed out that the state Transport Authority is not functioning since January, 1967 after its Chairman shri S. D. Ujjwal had been transferred1 to another post.
(3.)IN questioning the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner, granting the permits to respondents Nos, 3 to 10, the petitioner contends that the state Transport Authority had issued directions in exercise of its powers under section 44 of the Act to the Regional Transport Authority to fix the scope over routes on the basis that a bus operator should get an average of 80 route miles instead of 40 miles per day and consequently the Regional Transport Authority was not entitled to grant the permits to the concerning respondents without first fixing the scope over the route in accordance with the directions of the State transport Authority. In other words, it is contended that the provisions of Section 44 were mandatory and the Regional Transport Authority was bound to give effect to the directions and be guided by the directions and any action taken in violation of these directions was, accord-ine to the petitioner, illegal. It is next contended by the petitioner that it was not Riven proper notice for the meeting of the regional Transport. Authority at which the scope for the route was revised from 8 to 16 permits. Then thirdly it was contended that when the applications of the respondents for grant of permits were taken up for consideration on 9-2-67, the agenda for the meeting did not include the matter about the applications -of respondents Nos. 3 to 6, and further that the additional timings granted by the regional Transport Authority to the concerning respondents was bad.

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