V. Bhargava, J. - (1.) By this Special appeal, the appellant challenges the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing a petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution by which the appellant had prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash resolution no. 38 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut in a meeting held on 29th, 30th and 31st of January, 1963 and for the issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut not to give effect to the impugned resolution. It appears that in the district of Bulandshahr at one time there were three set of operators operating stage carriages on three routes. One set of operators was running their stage carriages from Bulandshahr to Narora via Anupshahr, Debai Duraha, Ram Ghat and Rajghat. Another set of operators was running their stage carriages from Bulandshahr to Shikarpur and a third set from Shikarpur to Ram Ghat via Debai Duraha. The Transport Authority at one time decided to amalgamate the routes from Bulandshahr to Shikarpur and Shikarpur to Ram Ghat. As a result of that decision, there came to be two sets of operators: one running their stage carriages from Bulandshahr to Narora via Anupshahr, Debai Duraha, Ram Ghat and Raj Ghat and the other running their stage carriages from Bulandshahr to Ram Ghat via Shikarpur and Debai Duraha. Thus, the portion of the route between Debai. Duraha and Ram Ghat became common to the two sets of operators besides the starting point Bulandshahr. The operators running their stage carriages via Anupshahr felt aggrieved and made applications that they might also be given the option of running their stage carriages via Shikarpur. It appears that the 44 respondents apart from the Regional Transport Authority, who is respondent no. 1 in this special appeal, made applications of this nature. These applications were dealt with under Sec. 57 (8) of the Motor Vehicles Act and the procedure applicable to the issue of new permits was adopted. After complying with that provision the Regional Transport Authority considered those applications in the meeting held between 29th, 30th and 31st of January, 1963. The Transport Authority took into account the public interest and came to the conclusion that it was in the public interest to allow the operators, who hold permits to run their stage carriages via Anupshahr, the option of running their stage carriages via Shikarpur. Consequently, the route via Shikarpur-Debai-Duraha was also by this resolution included in the permits of the stage carriages held by those operators. It is this resolution that was challenged by the appellant. It may be mentioned that by the same resolution the Regional Transport Authority indicated that those operators who were running their stage carriages via Shikarpur between Bulandshahr and Ram Ghat could also apply to have the route via Anupshahr included in their permits and the Regional Transport Authority would be inclined to grant such a request in the interest of fair-play and equity. The writ petition by which this resolution was challenged was dismissed by the learned Single Judge holding that there were no grounds for quashing it.
(2.) The first point that has struck us in this case is that the appellant has come up to invoke the equitable jurisdiction of this Court for a relief which would be totally unfair to others and would give undue advantage to the appellant. The appellant originally held a permit up to Shikarpur only. Her permit was extended to Ram Ghat under Sec. 57 (8) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was in exercise of the same power under Sec. 57 (8) of the Motor Vehicles Act that the respondents to this appeal were granted that privilege of inclusion of the route via Shikarpur in their permits. The need for this prayer arose simply because of the earlier order made in favour of the appellant and other operators of the route on which the appellant has been operating, permitting their stage carriages to run from Bulandshahr through Shikarpur to Ram Ghat. This having become a shorter route, the operators on the longer route via Anupshahr found that they could no longer run their stage carriages economically. The appellant wants to continue to take advantage of the order made in her favour under Sec. 57 (8) of the Motor Vehicles Act extending her route, while she has come up to challenge the order by which a more equitable arrangement has been brought into existence so as to do away with the hardship that the operators on the Anupshahr route are suffering as a result of the order earlier made favouring the appellant and her co-operators. It is clear that the appellant wants to continue to take advantage of whatever orders have been made in her favour, while she wants that an equitable arrangement by which the hardship caused to others is mitigated, should be quashed. She has thus come to ask for a relief from this Court for the purpose of obtaining unfair advantage and has tried to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court which is only meant to be exercised in the interest of equity and justice. This ground by itself would, in our opinion, be sufficient to throw out this writ petition.
(3.) The prayer made on behalf of the appellant is based on the ground that a variation of routes in the permit of a stage carriage is not permissible under Sec. 57 (8) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The argument on behalf of the appellant is that the variations that can be made under Sec. 57 (8) of the Motor Vehicles Act are only in the conditions of a permit and those conditions must be held to be only the conditions mentioned in Sec. 48 (3) and 59 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The first point to be noticed is that though the appellant has come forward with such a plea in this Court in this writ petition in order to challenge the relief that has been granted to the respondents, she is doing so principally with the object of continuing to reap the benefit of a similar order made under Sec. 57 (8) of the Motor Vehicles Act which happened to be in her favour. As we have mentioned before, the appellant's route was only between Bulandshahr and Shikarpur and if it had not been extended up to Ram Ghat, there would have been no grievance of the respondents against the appellant; nor would they have ever prayed that they be allowed to operate their stage carriages via Shikarpur. If we were to accept the submission made on behalf of the appellant that the prescription of route for stage carriages under a permit is not a condition of the permit at all, the necessary conclusion that has to be drawn is that even the extension of the permit of the appellant from Shikarpur to Ram Ghat was illegal. If this submission were to be accepted and the Court were to exercise its equitable jurisdiction in the interest of justice, the only order that the Court could have made was to quash the earlier resolution extending the permit of the appellant beyond Shikarpur up to Ram Ghat, while quashing resolution no. 38 altering the route of the 44 respondents. We find that no occasion arises in this case for the exercise of this power of ours; because, in our opinion, the resolution no. 38 as well as the earlier resolution by which the appellant's route was extended are both within the scope of the powers of the Regional Transport Authority under Sec. 57 (8) of the Motor Vehicles Act.;