N.U.Beg, J. - (1.) Two persons namely, Abdul Aziz and Uma Shanker Misra, held one stage carriage permit each. The permit of Abdul Aziz was permit No. 112. It fell due for renewal on the 28th of January 1960. The permit of Uma Shanker Misra was Permit No. 133. It fell due for renewal on the 2nd of April 1960. Both these persons applied for renewal of their permits. It appears that Abdul Aziz had not applied for renewal of his permit within time. Realising, therefore, that his application was beyond limitation, he applied for a fresh permit also. A third person viz. Sri W.L. Ross, who is the petitioner in this case, also applied for a fresh permit, in case the permit of any of the other persons was not renewed. On the 9th of April, 1960, the petitioner filed objections to the renewal of the said permits. On the 29th of April, 1960, the Regional Transport Authority met to dispose of these applications. On that day permit no. 133 in favour of Uma Shankar was allowed to be renewed. So far as permit No. 112 which belonged to Abdul Aziz was concerned, the Regional Transport Authority rejected its renewal on the ground that it was time barred. It then went on to consider the application of the petitioner for a fresh permit and his objections. It may be mentioned at this stage that one more person had filed objections to the renewal, and had also applied for a fresh permit. The order of the Regional Transport Authority in respect of these two objectors was as follows: "The two objectors have filed applications for fresh permits which were considered in the light of the arguments made by their counsel. The applications are incomplete in so far as the additional information on the required questionnaire has not been Submitted. They may be advised to do so now. Invite applications for fresh permit upto 30 days from the date of publication in the gazette. The question of increasing the strength of buses on this route will also be considered at the time of grant of fresh permits. The applications of the two objectors and that of Sri Abdul Aziz will be considered along with others." Sri. W. L. Ross filed an appeal against this order. It came up for hearing before the State Transport Authority Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed this appeal on the ground that the Regional Transport Authority had not so far parsed any final orders on the application of the appellant W.L. Ross, and had reserved his application for a fresh permit for consideration along with other applications. The Tribunal, accordingly, dismissed the appeal on the 2nd of February, 1981. Thereafter Sri W. L. Ross filed the present writ petition on the 17th of March, 1961.
(2.) The sole argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner before me has been that when an application for renewal of permit is made by a party, and, at that time, an application for a fresh permit is also made by another party, it is not open to the Regional Transport Authority to invite applications for a fresh permit under Section 57 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The further argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner in this connection is that in this situation the Regional Transport Authority is bound to grant the application of the other party where the other party happens to be the only party that is competing with the applicant who had applied for renewal. The result, according to the learned counsel, is that where the application for renewal is dismissed, the Regional Transport Authority is bound to grant the application of the other party where he remains the only applicant for a fresh permit.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at great length and have found if difficult to accept his contentions in this regard. It may be mentioned at the very outset that the assumption of the learned Counsel that the petitioner was the sole applicant for a fresh permit, and the only competitor against the applicant for the renewal of permit does not appear to be correct. The order of the Regional Transport Authority dated the 29th of April, 1960 cited above itself states that there were two objectors who had filed applications for a fresh permit. If there were two objectors, as indicated by the said order, then the entire foundation for the argument of the learned counsel disappears, and his contention is liable to be repelled on this ground alone.;