- (1.)THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, by one Sardar Narain singh Kohli, against an order of the Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 28-8-1961, cancelling his permit for a public carrier, which was granted by the Regional transport Authority, Jaipur Region, at its meeting dated 26/27th February, 1960.
(2.)ON 6-7-1959, the Regional Transport Authority invited applications for the grant of 65 permits for public carriers on the Jaipur-Delhi route. These applications were published in the gazette dated 10-12-1959. Out of the 65 permits, which were granted by the Regional Transport Authority, one was granted to the petitioner.
(3.)41 persons, who had applied for the grant of permits but who had not been granted permits, preferred appeals against the decision of the Regional Transport authority, to the Transport Appellate Authority. Respondents Nos. 3 to 10 were out of these appellants. The Transport Appellate Tribunal fixed 23-5-1961 for the hearing of the appeals and directed that notices he issued to the respondents on 8-4-1961. The record of the Transport Appellate Tribunal does not show whether these notices were actually issued, and if so, whether any of them was actually served. The petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that no notice of any appeal was served on him and that he had no information of the date of hearing. At the hearing before the Transport Appellate Tribunal the petitioner was admittedly not present. The permit granted to him was cancelled along with some other permits and eight permits were issued by the Transport Appellate Tribunal to Respondents nos. 3 to 10. The date of hearing of the appeal was notified in the gazette dated 13-7-61 The names of parties were also notified in this gazette, and the name of the petitioner appeared in the list of respondents section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act which makes provision for filing an appeal against an order of the Regional Transport Authority refusing to grant a permit does not prescribe that a notice of the appeal shall be served on the respondent. It only prescribes that a notice shall be served on the Regional Transport Authority granting the permit Nor is there any provision in the Motor Vehicles Rules for giving any notice to the person whose permit might be cancelled by the Appellate authority. It was, however, held by a Division Bench of this Court in Mohammed rafiuddin y. State Transport Authority Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, ILR (1958) 8 raj 792, that 'where a permit is granted by the Regional Transport Authority and some person flies an appeal with a prayer that the said grant of permit be set aside, it is not only just but quite necessary that the party who has been granted the permit should have a notice of the appeal. ' The same view was taken by another Division Bench of this Court in Moti Lal Ram Kalyan v. Appellate Authority of State Transport Authority Rajasthan, ILR (1959) 9 Raj 1167 = (AIR 1960 Raj 201 ). In Will's Constitutional Law, 1936 Edition, the following passage occurs at page 664 -
"essentials of Notice -- When notice is required by due process of law in order to be sufficient it must notify a person of the time and place, including the tribunal before whom a claim is to be made; apprise him of the nature of the cause against him; come to a person of reasonable intelligence; and afford him sufficient opportunity to prepare and make his answer. In the case of proceedings in rem notice by publication is sometimes sufficient. Where the proceedings are not in rem, substituted or constructive notice is due process of law only when personal service cannot be obtained, even as to property within the jurisdiction of the court. "