(1.)THIS is a petition under Art. 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 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.
Ersons, who had applied for the grant of permit, 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 be 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 Respedt. 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. Sec. 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 Act for giving any notice to the person whose permit might be cancelled by the Appellate Authority It was, however, been held by a Division Bench of this Court in Mohammed Rafiuddin vs. The State Transport Authority Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan (l) that - 'where a permit is granted by the Regional Transport Authority and some person files 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 vs. The Appellate Authority of State Transport Authority, Rajasthan, Jaipur (2 ). In Will's Constitutional Law, 1936 Edition, the following passage occurs at P. 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. "
As proceedings before the Transport Appellate Tribunal are not proceedings in rem, and as the Act or the Rules do not prescribe notice by publication in the gazette, it is necessary to serve a notice of the date of hearing personally on every respondent. It should be served at the address given by the respondent concerned in his application for grant of permit.
Ex. 6 at Page 45 of the paper book is the application filed by the petitioner for the grant of permit. The address given in it runs, as follows: - "sardar Narain Singh Kohli, son of Surendra Singh Kohli C/o New Azad Rajasthan Golden Transport Co. , Chand-ki-Taksal, Jaipur City. " None of the appellants gave this address in their memo, of appeals. The only address given by them was - "sardar Narain Singh Kohli, son of Sunder Singh Kohli, Jaipur. " Two of the appellants, namely, Munshi Ram Sethi (Respondent No. 3) and Kesar Singh (Respondent No. 6) did not even implead the petitioner as a respondent in their appeals It is the duty of the appellate authority to see that all the respondents are served. If the serving officer reports that the address given is not sufficient or that it is not correct, then the appellant concerned should be called upon to furnish full or correct address as the case may be. Substituted service by publication in the gazette can be made if the appellate authority finds that a party is evading service.
I accordingly hold that the order passed by the Transport Appellate Tribunal cancelling the permit of the petitioner is liable to be set aside for want of proper service on him. But I find that it is not necessary to order a re-hearing of the appeal in this particular case as there are four vacancies which were not taken into consideration by the Transport Appellate Tribunal in its order dated 28-8-1961. The Tribunal was informed that only two of the 65 persons to whom permits had been granted had not availed of them Letter. (Ex. 12), at Page 57 sent by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur to the Secretary, State Transport Authority, Delhi, and its reply (Ex. 13), at Page 59, go to show that in fact six persons to whom permits had been granted by the Regional Transport Authority did not get them countersigned by the State Transport Authority, Delhi.
I accordingly allow the writ petition, set aside the order of the Transport Appellate Tribunal in so far as it cancelled the permit granted to the petitioner.
The permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority to the petitioner has since been renewed and shall stand good.
In the circumstances of the case, I direct parties to bear their own costs of this writ petition. .