MOOLA RAM Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY BIKANER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution against an order of the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner, allowing respondents Nos. 2 to 13 to ply an additional service between Bikaner and Salasar and re-fixing the time table without issuing any notice to the petitioner. The petition has been contested on behalf of respondents Nos. 2 to 13.

(2.) IN 1958 between Bikaner and Salasar there were three independent routes between Bikaner to Nokha (40 miles), Nokha to Sujangarh (75 miles) and Sujangarh to Salasar (18 miles ). The petitioner was an existing operator on Bikaner-Nokha route. IN 1958 a number of persons filed applications for grant of permits on Bikaner-Salasar route, overlapping the existing 3 routes. The operators of the existing routes filed objections. The Regional Transpose Authority granted 12 permits to the 12 contesting respondents. But in order that the interest of the existing operators on the Bikaner-Nokha, Nokha-Sujangarh and Sujangarh-Salasar routes may be safeguarded the following conditions were attached to these permits (annexure 4) : - 1. The maximum number of permits on the Bikaner-Salasar route was fixed at 12 and it was provided that there will be only 3 return services every day. 2. It was provided that the buses on the Bikaner-Salasar route shall stop only at Nokha, Jasrasar, Bidasar, Chhapar and Sujangarh.

(3.) AS the time-table fixed by the Regional Transport Authority is a condition of the permit an order fixing a time-table or varying it can be appealed against under sec. 64 (b ). It was open to the petitioner to file an appeal against the order of the Regional Transport Authority giving additional timing to the operators of the Bikaner-Salasar route. But in the circumstances of the present case it would be very harsh on the petitioner to dismiss his writ petition on the ground that he had an alternative remedy. For he filed this writ petition when the appeal to the Transport Appellate Tribunal was not barred by limitation. Now such an appeal is barred by limitation. Further the order in question was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and in violation of the procedure prescribed under sec. 57. In this connection I may refer to the decisions in Union of India vs. T. R. Varma (8) and A. V. Venkteswaran vs. R. S. Wadhwani (9 ).