D.S. Mathur, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Harish Chandra Shah for the issue of a writ of mandamus, or an order or direction in the nature of mandamus, to direct the Regional Transport Authority, Kumaun Region, Respondent No. 1, to renew the Petitioner's permit No. 28/PTE: Carr: for his private carrier and also for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 19 -10 -1957 of the Regional Transport Authority, which was communicated, to the Petitioner under its letter dated 28 -10 -1957, whereby the Authority refused to renew his licence.
(2.) THE Respondents, the Regional Transport Authority and the State Transport Commissioner have not filed any counter affidavit. It can, therefore be presumed that the facts of the case as given by the Petitioner are not challenged by them. These admitted facts are that the Petitioner and his two younger brothers jointly own an extensive orchard of apples, apricots, plums, peaches and pears, known as "Amravati Orchard Estate," in the district of Nainital and in the orchard they also carry on potato cultivation. They have to transport fruits and vegetables to Nainital or to Kathgodam and Haldwani railway stations and they have also to transport to their orchard implements, seeds, chemicals, fertilizers, manures, ration for labour, building materials and shocks in connection with their business They, therefore purchased a goods vehicle and duly obtained a permit in 1954. The vehicle was subsequently replaced. The permit of the private carrier was renewed from time to time and the last renewal was upto 4 -7 -1957. The Petitioner in due course applied for the renewal of the permit, but on account of a part of the road being notified under the UP Road Transport Services (Development) Act, 1955, UP Act No. IX of 1955 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act), the Regional Transport Authority issued temporary permits and later on declined to issue even a temporary permit. It was then that the Petitioner moved writ petition No. 2357 of 1957 before this Court to direct the Regional Transport Authority to pass orders on the application for renewal of permit. On becoming aware of the interim order issued by the High Court, the Regional Transport Authority considered the application of the Petitioner in its meeting held on 19 -10 -1957 and decided not to renew the permit as the route was a notified roadways route. This decision was communicated to the Petitioner under its letter dated 28 -10 -1957, annexure "F" to the affidavit. In paras. 17 and 18 of the affidavit it is also alleged that similar permits with regard to other private carriers were renewed, even though a part of the route had been notified and was covered by a scheme prepared under the Act. I have made a casual reference to these allegations to bring to the notice of the Respondents that whatever interpretation they may give to the provisions of the Act, they should not discriminate among permit holders. When they were of the opinion that no permit could be granted for the running of private carriers on the notified route, a view which was not correct, it was but proper that the same view should have been adopted while entertaining the implications of other owners of private carriers for the renewal of their permits.
(3.) THE main point and in fact the only point for consideration in the present proceeding is whether the renewal of permits of private carriers could be refused, after the coming into effect of an scheme of the State Road Transport Service published under Section 4 of the Act, merely on the ground that the route had since been notified; or it was necessary for the Regional Transport Authority to pass orders on the renewal application in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.;