Shelat, C.J. - (1.) This petition raises a question of interpretation of the notification No.S.O.1077 dated April 29, 1960, issued by the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred upon it by section 47A read with section 48 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 64 of 1950, whereby the Central Government approved the scheme forwarded by the Government of Bombay relating to the re-organization on the Bombay State Road Transport Corporation and the dissolution of the Kutch State Road Transport Corporation and Saurashtra State Road Transport Corporation.
(2.) The petitioner corporation under section 47A(3)(b) of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. The Bombay Road Transport Corporation and Saurashtra State Road Transport Corporation were constituted under section 3 of the said Act. The third respondents held a permit under section 48 of the Motor Vehicles Act, IV of 1939, for plying stage carriages in respect of a route known Vallabhipur-Dhola Route. That permit was to expire on May 31, 1958. On April 10, 1958 the third respondent applied for the removal of that permit in respect of the said route. On April 18, 1958, the Bombay State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Corporation, also applied for a permit for that route. Prior thereto, the Saurashtra State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Saurashtra) had already applied on February 27, 1958 for a permit for that route, but that corporation withdrew its application its application at a meeting of the second respondent held on July 4, 958. The fourth respondent also applied had applied for a permit for the same route, but since it failed to attend the meeting held on 4, July 1958,its application was not considered by the second respondent. Therefore, the applicant of the third respondent for renewal and the application of the Bombay Corporation for a fresh permit were the only two applications pending before the second respondent for consideration. (2a) By its order dated July 15, 1958, the second respondent granted the permit to the Bombay Corporation. Thereupon the aforesaid respondent filed an appeal against the aforesaid order, being Appeal No., 241 of 1958,bbefore the first respondent under section o64 of the Motor vehicles Act. By its order dated June 23, 1959 the first respondent dismissed the appeal of the third respondent and confirmed the order passed by the second respondent in favour of the Bombay Corporation, The third respondent therefore, filed a special civil application, Nos., 962 of 1959, in the High Court at Bombay where, by consent of the parties, the order passed by the Appellate Committee, i.e, the second respondent was set aside and the second respondent was directed to hear the aforesaid appeal, i.e., Appeal No. 241 of 1958, afresh. That order was passed without prejudice tot he rights and contentions of the parties and it also directed that status quo should be maintained in the mean time. That order was passed on March 23, 1960. In the meantime, the Bombay Reorganization Act, XI of Gujarat came into being. Under the provisions of section 47A of the Road Corporation was constituted as from May 1,1960. The aforesaid appeal No. 241 of 1958 came up for hearing before the second respondent on November 5, 1960. By its order dated December 3, 1960 the first respondent remanded the matter to the second respondent. On the matter being so remanded, the second respondent by its order being so remanded the second respondent, by its order dated July 26,m 1961, granted the permit to the fourth respondent and requested and rejected the application for permit by the Bombay Corporation. Against the aforesaid order, two appeals were filed before the first respondent. Appeal No. 24 of 1961 by the petitioner corporation and Appeal No. 19 by the third respondent. The first respondent allowed by the appeal of the third respondent, directing that permit should be granted to the third respondent, and dismissed the appeal field by the petitioner corporation. While dismissing the appeal filed by the Bombay Corporation, the first respondent observed that one of the issues raised by the learned advocate for the third respondent was that the Gujarat Corporation had no locus standi was that appeal and was not entitled to continue the proceeding initiated by the Bombay Corporation, as it had by then become defunct. The first respondent accepted that contention and held that the petitioner corporation was not entitled to continue that proceeding as "the application for the grant of permit is neither property nor right and therefore in view of clause (22) of that notification GS. T R C, has no right to be substituted as successor to SS. RTC. We therefore, reject th4 appeal against the Gariadhar M.V.V.S M. Ltd". By same order, the first respondent set aside the order of the second respondent under which permit was granted to the fourth respondent and, allowing the appeal of the third respondent, directed that permit should be granted to the third respondent. It is against the order of dismissal of Appeal No. 24 of 1961 and the finding by the first respondent that the Gujarat Corporation was not entitled to continue the said proceeding and had no locus standi in respect thereof that the present petition has been filed.
(3.) Mr. Nanavati appearing for the petitioner corporation has mainly relied upon paragraphs 5 and 14 in Part II of the said application, and his contention was that under paragraph 114, since the Bombay Corporation was a party to the said proceeding immediately before the appointed day, i.e., May 1, 1960 and that the proceeding arising from the aforesaid application was with property, i.e., motor vehicles, situate in Gujarat area immediately before the appointed day and which stood transferred to the petitioner corporation under paragraph 7 of the notification, the petitioner corporation was dismissed to be substituted for the Bombay Corporation as a party to the aforesaid proceeding, or added as a party thereto, as the case may be, and that under paragraph 14 the first respondent was bound to treat the said proceeding as having continued accordingly. He also argued that as the second respondent had granted the permit to the Bombay Corporation which, immediately before the appointed day, was valid and effective, that permit was deemed to have been granted to the petitioner corporation and that being so, and an appeal having been filed against that order, the Gujarat Corporation must be deemed to be a party to that appeal and consequently it was not correct for the first respondent to hold that the petitioner corporation had no locus standi or no right to appear in the said appeal. In either events, argued Mr. Nanavati, the order of dismissal of the appeal passed by the first respondent was incorrect and contrary to the provisions of paragraph 5 and 114 of that notification.;