HARISHCHANDER SINGH Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)THIS writ application is directed against the resolution of the Regional Transport authority, Udaipur Region, Udai-pur No, 86 passed in the meeting held from 15th to 18th March, 1967 granting three permits to each of the non-petitioners Nos. 3, 4 and 5 viz. Bhawanishanker, Kanaiya-lal and Laxmi Trading Company respectively on Ghatol-Kushalgarh route via Surpur, Banswara, Kalinjra, Sajjangarh, Doongra for a period of three years.
(2.)THE petitioner held a stage carriage permit on Banswara to Kushalgarh route and subsequently this permit was extended from Banswara to Ghatol. by a resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur dated 25/26 October, 1963 and since then the petitioner has been plying his bus on the Ghatol-Kushalgarh route. It may be stated that Ghatol-Kushalgarh route is 68 miles 'a' Glass route and the petitioner plies one return service daily. It appears that subsequently Hazi moola Rasool Bhai Abdul Husaain and Brothers and Saiyed Niyamalullah who are also existing operators on Kushalgarh-Banswara route applied for extension of their permits from Banswara to Ghatol and when their applications came up for consideration the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur by its resolution No. 59 dated 25th/ 26th March, 1965 dismissed their applications on the ground that the extension asked for would be unnecessary and would result in joining two separate routes viz. Banswara Kushalgarh and Banswara-Ghatol. A little later the Regional transport Authority, Udaipur vide its notification dated 15-6-1905 published in the rajasthan Rajpatra dated 1-7-65 proposed to revise the existing scope of stage carriage permits on the Banswara-Kushalgarh routes amongst others and invited objections to the proposed increase in the number of stage carriage permits as shown in the Notification. It may be stated that the existing scope-permits shown against the Banswara-Kushalgarh and Ghatol-Kushalgarh route was two and the proposed increase in the number of permits was shown as two. So also for Gbatol-Kushalgarh route the existing scope-permit was shown as one and the proposed increase in the number of permits was shown as two. It is stated by the petitioner that he submitted objections to the proposed increase in permits, but the matter has not been decided so far by the Regional Transport Authority in respect of the route in question viz. Ghatol-Kushalgarh route. Then, it appears that six more persons made applications for grant of permits on this route which came up for consideration before the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority held on 171-1966. The applications of the applicants who remained absent were rejected straightway while the applications of those who were present were kept pending till the scope of traffic between Ghatol and Kushalgarh was ascertained after proper survey. By the same resolution the Regional Transport Authority also directed issue of notice to the petitioner, who is an existing operator, to "show cause" why his route be not curtailed between Ghatol and Kushalgarh and he kept only from Ghatol to Banswara. The petitioner submits that he has filed a reply to show cause notice but nothing has been done in the matter so far.
(3.)THEREAFTER the non-petitioners Nos. 3, 4 and 5 applied for grant of one permit each on Ghatol-Kushalgarh route. Objections were filed by the petitioner to the applications of the non-petitioners Nos. 3, 4 and 5, but the Regional Transport authority by the impugned resolution granted a non-temporary stage carriage permit to each of the three non-petitioners on this route for a period of three years.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.