- (1.)THIS is a special appeal against the judgment dated 29th March, 1967, of Jagat narayan J. quashing the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur, by which it allowed the replacement of the bus RJZ 203 by another bus of 1958 model on payment of Rs. 250 as composition fee. The learned single Judge further remanded the case to the Regional Transport Authority for reconsideration after issuing notice under Section 60 (1) (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter called the Act. This order was passed by the learned single Judge on the writ petition filed by Messrs. Ganesh Bus Service, Beawar, under Article 226 of the constitution. It had a stage carriage permit from Beawar to Pisangan route. The appellant tn this appeal who was the contesting party in the writ petition had also a non-temporary stage carriage permit No. B. P. 1157 on the same route and this permit was valid upto 7th February, 1965. Bus No. RJZ 203 was covered by this permit. It is not in dispute that the appellant sold its bus to Shri Hastimal on 26th december, 1963. In the writ petition filed by Messrs. Ganesh Bus Service, respondent No. 3 in this appeal, it was contended that the said Hastimal obtained a non-temporary stage carriage permit from the Regional Transport Authority jodhpur on Nagaur Khatu route on 27th December, 1963, which was valid upto 26th December, 1966, and bus No. RJZ 203 was covered by that permit also. Shri hastimal obtained a renewal of his permit on 16th August, 1966. and the same bus is covered by that route permit.
(2.)THE appellant applied for renewal of its permit on 6th December, 1964, which was published in the Rajasthan Gazette. No objection was filed by respondent No. 3 to this application and the renewal of the permit was granted on 29th May, 1965. On 19th August, 1966 the appellant applied for replacement of bus RJZ 203 by another bus No. RJZ 2311. It may be mentioned here that before this date it had applied twice for replacement of its bus but no action was taken on its application. The application of the appellant for replacement was disposed of on 8th September, 1966, and it was ordered that entries be made in the permit on payment of Rs. 250 as composition fee for sale of the bus without sanction. In pursuance of this order, entries were made in the permit on 17th September. 1966.
(3.)RESPONDENT No. 3 in its writ petition challenged the order of renewal dated 29th may, 1965, and also the order dated 8th September, 1966, on various grounds. Notice of the Writ petition was given to the appellant and to other parties to the writ petition. The learned single Judge held that so far as the renewal of the permit concerned, no objection could be taken by respondent No. 3 as no objection was filed when the application for renewal was published. But so far as the order of compounding was concerned, it was held to be without jurisdiction as in the opinion of the learned Judge the case of the appellant fell under Clause (c)of Section 60 (1) of the Act. The learned Judge further observed as follows:
"when during the proceedings for replacement it came to the notice of the Regional Transport Authority that the respondent had ceased to own the vehicle covered by the permit it was its bounden duty to start proceedings under Section 80 (1) for cancellation or suspension of the permit. It, however, did not do so as it was under the erroneous impression that it could compound the offence. . . . . "
The learned Judge, therefore, quashed the order of the Regional Transport authority allowing replacement on payment of Rs. 250 as compounding fee and the case was remanded to the Regional Transport Authority for reconsideration after issuing notice under Section 60 (1) (c ).
;