- (1.)THIS is a writ petition by one Krishna Kumar Choudhry and bv it he questions the legality of an order of the Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 7-10-67 (Ex. 4 on the record), by which the Transport Appellate Tribunal, on an appeal by non-petitioner no. 3 Messrs. Sharma Transport, set aside an order of the Regional transport Authority, Kota, and in doing so, cancelled the permit granted in favour of the petitioner and ordered the grant of a permit instead to respondent No. 3 messrs Sharma Transport on an inter-statal route Eklera in Rajasthan to beenaganj in Madhya Pradesh. The relevant facts are briefly these.
(2.)EKLERA in Rajasthan and Beenagani in Madhya Pradesh were served by a bus route which was agreed to be opened under a reciprocity arrangement between the States of Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh. The total length of the route is said to be 41 miles, out of which 33 miles lie in Rajasthan territory and 8 miles in the territory of Madhya Pradesh State. After the reciprocity agreement between the two States was entered into, the Regional Transport Authority. Kota, invited applications for grant of permits over this route. The notification of the Regional transport Authority was published in the gazette dated 9-12-65. In response to the notification, 15 applications were filed before the Regional Transport Authority and they came to be published by a notification dated 16-6-66 in the gazette for inviting objections. The petitioner Krishna Kumar Choudhry and the respondent Messrs. Sharma transport were amongst the applicants. According to the petitioner, no objections of any kind were received against the applications of the petitioner. However, for some reasons into which it is not necessary to enter these applications which were for grant of non-temporary permits could not be disposed of and in the meantime for meet-ins the pressing demand nf the travelling public the Regional Transport authority, Kota, entertained applications for grant of temporary permits. The petitioner and respondent No. 3 had both applied for the grant of temporary permits and they were successful in getting one temporary permit each. The petitioner proceeds to say that while he was able to avail of his temporary permit, respondent No. 3 could not do so, as he had no bus for availing the permit. According to the petitioner. Messrs. Sharma Transport was only a trade name for Shri Shyam Sunder Sharma of Jhalawar, and h" had obtained some other permits over certain routes under different names. These 15 applications for grant of non-temporary permits for the inter-statal route including the applications of the petitioner and respondent No. 3, were taken up by the Regional Transport authority at its meeting held on 10/11th January, 1967 After considering the applications the Regional Transport Authority by its resolution of even date (Ex, 3 on the record) decided to grant one permit over the route to the petitioner and it rejected the application of respondent No. 3. The relevant observations made by the Regional Transport Authority were as follows:--
"shri Shyam Sunder Sharma who has come in disguise of Narain Lal and bros, and Sharma Transport has already got permits on other routes as such the applications of Narain Lal and Bros and Sharma Transport are rejected. . . . . . . . . . Shri Krishna Kumar Chaudhary has offered a ready bus. "
"resolved therefore a non-temporary stage carriage permit valid for 3 years be granted to Shri Krishna Kumar Chaudhary for his ready bus. " the respondent No. 3 then went up in appeal to the Transport Appellate Tribunal, jaipur. The Transport Appellate Tribunal considered the reasons recorded by the regional Transport Authority for refusing to grant permit to respondent No. 3 and then observed as follows: -
"it may be noted that Sharma Transport was an existing operator on a portion of the route and this reason appears to be good for grant of a permit to him on Iklera-Binaganj route as this is likely to help coordinate the services on the route. There appears little reason to think that shvam Sunder had made an application in disguise in the name of sharma Transport. Sharma Transport was providing service on Jhalawar-Manoharthana route and it was good reason for the appellant to apply in the same name for grant of permit on Iklera-Binaganj route. The R. T. A took this objection against him without merit. In my opinion he has a better claim than Krishna Kumar for grant of permit on the inter-statal route, Krishna Kumar holds another permit on some route near Kota and it could not be convenient for him to manage services on the route at a distance. "

(3.)IN questioning the correctness of the order of the Transport Appellate Tribunal, it is contended by the petitioner that the Transport Appellate Tribunal has obviously erred in taking into consideration certain material facts which were not on the record of the case. It is pointed out that the fact that respondent No. 3 was an existing operator on a portion of the route Iklera-Binaganj was neither placed before the Regional Transport Authority, nor was the same relied on by non-petitioner No. 3 before the Regional Transport Authority in any manner. In the circumstances it is urged that it was not open to the Transport Appellate Tribunal to rely on this fact in ordering the grant of a permit to respondent No. 3. It was next contended that the petitioner who was the respondent before the transport Appellate Tribunal, did not have sufficient notice of the material facts that the Appellate Tribunal would be taking into consideration. This, according to the petitioner, had violated the principles of natural justice. Thirdly, it is urged that as required by rule 109 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, it was the duty of the non-petitioner to have filed the list of documents on which he wanted to rely together with copies of such documents in duplicate and consequently it was not open to the Transport Appellate Tribunal to look into the documents which had not been produced bv the respondent No. 3. Fourthly, it is pointed out that the considerations adumberated in Section 47 of the motor Vehicles Act for giving preference to one applicant over the other had been disregarded by the Transport Appellate Tribunal. Finally, it was contended by the petitioner that respondent No. 3 had made misrepresentations in his appeal that he had a bus of a model later than that provided by the petitioner. It is submitted that bus No. RJO 515. the registration certificate of which was shown by the non-petitioner No. 3 to the Transport appellate Tribunal, was of 1960 model and according to the standing instructions of the State Transport Authority a permit for the route in question which was, according to the petitioner an 'a' class route, could not have been issued as it was of a model older than 5 vears.
;