LODHA, J - (1.)THIS is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by Messrs Kothari Roadways, Nathdwara bus operator, plying non-temporary stage carriage on Bhilwara - Gorkhiya route challenging the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur dated 20-12-1965 by which it was directed that the petitioner's permit to ply a non temporary stage carriage on the said route may be renewed for a period of three years from 29-8-1965 provided the petitioner produces a vehicle of 1957 model to be put on this route.
(2.)THE facts giving rise to this writ petition may be stated within a short compass.
The petitioner along with three others of whom the non petitioner No. 2 Shri Bhanwarlal is one was granted a permit on Bhilwara Gorkhiya route by resoulation No. 39 of the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur, passed in the meeting held on 5th and 6th July, 1962 on the condition that the petitioner as also the other persons to whom similar permits had been granted would employ buses of the the prescribed model on this route on or before 1-9-1962. The petitioner's case is that it put vehicle No. RJY 2039 (model 1956) on this route and plied the same without any objection from the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur. It is further stated that it made an application on 14-1-1964 to the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur that the route - Bhilwara - Gorkhiya was 'c' Class route and it was not possible to ply a diesel bus on this route as the petitioner had been doing hitherto fore and therefore it was requested that it may be permitted to replace bus No. RJY 2039 by a petrol bus No. RJY 933 which was of 1954 model. This replacement was allowed by the Regional Transport Authority by its circula-tion order dated. . 28 1-1964. Accordingly the petitioner put bus No. RJY 933 model 1954 on this route. Since the petitioner's permit was only for a period of three years expiring on 29-8-1965 the petitioner made an application for renewal of the same some time in June 1965. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur by his letter dated 28th August, 1965 informed the petitioner that the Regional Transport Authority had allowed the renewal in regard to its permit on the route for three years with effect from 29. 8. 65 It was also mentioned in this letter that the endorsement of renewal would be made on receipt of the minutes of the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority. This letter has been put in original on the record and has been marked Annexure 7. Later on, the petitioner received another letter from the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, dated 15 9-1s65 mentioning therein that the petitioner's permit had not been renewed by the Regional Transport Authority in its meeting held on 9th 10th August 1965 and that its application for renewal would be considered in the next meeting to be held on 14th-15th October, 1965. It was also made dear in this subsequent letter that the previous letter addressed by the Secretary dated 28th August, 1965 (Annexure 7) may be treated as cancelled.

It so appears, that the petitioner's application for renewal, was considered in the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur held on 28th December, 1965 and it was directed that the petitioner's permit may be renewed only if it produces a vehicle of 1957 or higher model. As already stated above, it is this condition of producing a vehicle of 1957 Model contained in the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority dated 28th December 1965 which has been attacked by this writ petition.

No reply to the writ petition has been filed by the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur or the non-petitioner No. 2 Bhanwarlal. It is regrettable, that no appearance has been put in at all on behalf of the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time the permits were granted on this route it was specifically mentioned in the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority that the route in question - Bhilwara - Gorkhiya route was 44 miles in length - partly 'a', partly 'b' and partly 'c'. In the resolution No. 6 dated 20th December, 1965, it was mentioned by the Regional Transport Authority that the route was 25 miles 'a' Class and 20 miles 'c' majority being 'a' Class. It was further mentioned in this resolution that since the route in question was 'a' Class route the permit should have been issued on a vehicle of a model not lower than that of 1957, and should not have been issued for a 1956 model as was actually done. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record two notifications issued by the State Transport Authority, Rajasthan, Jaipur - one dt. 30-7-1959 and the other dt. 13 4-1961. In the resolution dt. 30-7-1959 it is mentioned that no model condition be imposed for renewal cases and for original grant of permits it was prescribed that no 'a' Class routes vehicles of model not less than five years old shall be put and similarly for 'b' and 'c' class of routes, model of not less than 10 years should be used. In the resolution dt. 11-5-61 it was resolved that at the time of renewal of permits for 'a' Class route no permit for a vehicle below 1952 model be renewed; for 'b' Class route no permit for a vehicle below 1919 model be renewed and for 'c' class route no model condition is necessary. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that for the first time model conditions were prescribed for mixed routes by the State Transport Authority by its resolution No. 15 dated 4-2-1965 and it was decided that the purposes of fixation of model conditions plying on mixed routes (i. e. the routes comprising of different classes of routes) shall be determined by the class of the route of which the major distance of the route is comprised. It is asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no other notification prescribing the model conditions for non-temporary stage carriage permits. This position is not controverted even by Shri A. L. Mehta who has put in appearance on behalf of non-petitioner No. 2 Bhanwarlal. On the basis of the aforesaid three resolutions of the State Transport Authority. Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that even it the route in question is considered as 'a' class route, his client was not bound to put a vehicle of 1957 model to get renewal of the permit in its favour. According to the earliest resolution on the subject dated 30-7 59 no model condition was imposed at ail for purposes of rene-wal. 'model condition, has been prescribed, for the purposes of renewal for the first time by the notification dated 13th April, 1961 and according to this notifica-tion also the petitioner was liable to put on the route a vehicle of a model not below 1952 even taking the route in question as 'a' class route. It is argued that so far as notification dated 4-2-1965 is concerned in the first place it would not govern the petitioner's case and even if it is held to be applicable to the petitioner, he was not liable to produce a vehicle of 1957 model on this route. This view of the Regional Transport, Authority, according to the learned counsel, that, the petitioner was bound to produce a vehicle of 1957 model i. e. of a model five years prior to the date of the grant of the original permit by virtue of applicability of resolution dated 30-7-1959 read with that of 4-2-1965 is basically wrong. His contention is that the resolution dated 30-7-59 made no provision for mixed routes and it was only by virtue of the notification dated 4-2-65 that the model conditions were prescribed for mixed routes also and this resolution of 1965 could not be applied retrospectively so as to adversely affect the permits which had been granted prior to the passing of this resolution. In support of his submission that no model conditions were prescribed for mixed routes prior to the resolution dt 4-2-1965 learned counsel has relied upon a Bench decision of this Court given in D. B. Writ petition No. 182 of 1960 M/s Bheron Lal Manakchand vs. R. T. A. , Jaipur and other connected cases decided on 12-2-1964 in which it was held that the resolution dated 30-7-1959 had no application to mixed routes, and it was as a result of this judgment that the notification dated 4-2-1965 prescribing the model conditions for mixed routes was also issued.

The aforesaid contentions raised by Mr. Gupta on behalf of the petitioner are not seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the non-petitioner No. 2 and as already stated above as far as the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur is concerned it has chosen not to put in appearance at all. On the basis of the material placed on the record there is no alternative but to hold that no model conditions were prescribed for mixed routes before the resolution dated 4-2-1965 was passed by the State Transport Authority, and for 'a' Class route for the purposes of renewal the modal prescribed was of 1952. The only question therefore is whether the resolution dated 4th February, 1965 can be allowed to operate retrospectively so as to hold that even in 1962 when the permit was granted to (he petitioner it was bound to put a vehicle of 1957 model for plying on this route. It is well established that a provision of law, be it an Act, rule, order or notification cannot be taken as retrospective in its operation unless there is an express provision to that effect or it can be taken to be so by necessary implication. 1 have looked into the resolution of the State Transport Authority dated 4th February, 1965 and in my opinion there is nothing in it to show that the authors of this resolution intended that the requirements contained in the resolution were to affect the transactions which had already taken place before the resolution was passed. In this view of the matter the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur, in my view, was clearly in error in making it a condition precedent to the renewal of the petitioner's permit that the petitioner must produce a vehicle of 1957 model. All that was required for the purposes of obtaining the renewal of the permit was that the petitioner must produce a vehicle of not below 1952 model and since the petitioner had produced a vehicle of 1954 model, it was entitled to get the renewal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Regional Transport Authority had wrongly recorded in its impugned resolution dated 20-12-65 that the counsel on behalf of the petitioner had conceded and agreed that the renewal may he granted on production of a vehicle of 1957 model. In this connection he has invited my attention to the affidavit of Shri Manohar Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioner, who had appeared before the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur. Shri Kothari has specifically sworn that he had not made any such concession. This affidavit has not been controverted and in any case a concession on a point of law made by a counsel cannot bind the client.

No other point was argued by the counsel for the parties.

The result is that this writ application is allowed, and the direction of Regional Tran sport Authority, Udaipur contained in the resolution dated 20th December, 1965 to the effect that the petitioner's permit on the route in question would be renewed only on production of a vehicle of a model not below 1957 is hereby quashed. It is further held that so far as the question of model of the vehicle is concerned, the petitioner is entitled to get its permit renewed on production of a vehicle of a model not below 1952. Since the case has been heard exparte against the Regional Transport Authority and no serious opposition has been made by the non-petitioner No, 2, I leave the parties to bear their own costs. .

;