- (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to publish the petitioners application for a stage carriage permit and consider it along with the renewal application of respondent No. 3.
(2.) IT appears that Varanasia - Jabalpur Via Mirzapur is an inter-state route lying between the State of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. Under a reciprocal arrangement between the two States, the strength of this route for which permits could be issued has been fixed at two. The permit were issued to Sri S.N. Tripathi and Smt. Hurmazi Begum, respondent No. 3. These permits were to expire on or about 25th December, 1966. The petitioner being desirous for one of these permits, made an application on 26-9-1966 for stage carriage permit on this route. In the covering letter to his application the petitioner stated that he was applying under Section 57(2) of the Motoi Vehicles Act. He also alleged that both the existing permits were illegally granted and as such they are not liable to be renewed. The Secretary Regional Transport Authority, respondent No. 2, on 2-11-1966 Replied that there would be no vacancy on the date the petitioner desired his application to be considered under Section 57(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The application will, however, be placed before the Regional Transport Authority in its meeting to be held on November 18, 1966. The petitioner was informed that he may represent his case before the Authority. Thereupon the petitioner addressed another letter to the Secretary on 17th November, 1966. In this letter he mentioned that he had applied for a permit in the vacancy caused on the expiry of the permit granted to Smt. Hurmazi Begum and Pandit S.N. Tripathi and his application should be considered along with their renewal applications, if any, and there was hence no need for placing his application before the Regional Transport Authority in the meeting to be held on 18th November, 1966. The petitioner states that Smt. Hurmazi Begum, respondent no. 3, had already applied for renewal of her permit. Her application for renewal was sent by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority for publication on 26-10-1966 and it was published on 5-11-1966. The petitioners application made on 26-9-1966, was pending when Smt. Hurmazi Begums application was sent for publication. Her application was fixed for disposal before the Regional Transport Authority on 16th December, 1966. The petitioner alleges that the Secretary Regional Transport Authority has not published the petitioners application and as such it could not be considered by the Regional Transport Authority along with Smt. Hurmazi Begums renewal application. The letter issued by the Secretary on 2-11-1966 was misleading and was intended to deceive the petitioner. It is alleged that Smt Hurmazi Begum is the mother-in-law of Sri Muzaffar Husain, Transport Minister in the Government of Uttar Pradesh. The Regional Transport Authority is directly under the control of the Transport Minister and because of this the Regional Transport Authority is bent upon renewing the permit of Smt. Hurmazi Begum With that end in view, the authority is not allowing any other applicant including the petitioner, to come in competition with Smt. Hurmazi Begum. The action of the Secretary in not publishing the petitioners application was mala fide and arbitrary. The authorities have decided not to consider any other application along with the renewal application of respondent no. 3 and to renew her permit straightaway. Respondent No. 3 in her counter-affidavit has alleged that the writ petition has been filed only to subserve political rivalry and jealousy. The leaders of the Praia Socialist Party and of the Samukt Socialist party are bent upon to malign Sri Muzaffar Husain ever since he assumed the charge of the ministry of Transport and they have picked up respondent no. 3 as a target. The third respondent was granted a stage carriage permit in 1957 lone before Sri Muzaffar Husain became minister. She is being victimised and harassed and subjected to litigation merely because she is related to a minister. Her application for renewal was duly published but no objections have been filed by any one including the petitioner. There was no complaint or conviction against her and in all respects she had better claims for renewal. She denied that the permit was given to her either because of any fraud or misrepresentation or because of the influence of her son-in-law. Sri Muzaffar Husain.
(3.) ANOTHER counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Regional Transport Authority and its Secretary. It is stated therein that the petitioner applied for the permit on 26th September, 1966 and desired that his permit should take effect in six weeks from the date of his application. On such a date there would have been no vacancy on the route and if the petitioners application was granted, the limit of the strength for the route would have been violated. The petition was hence liable to be rejected summarily. There was, therefore, no necessity for publishing the petitioners application. The various allegations relating to the grant of permit to the third respondent have been denied. It has been affirmed that the Regional Transport Authority is a statutory quasi judicial body. The Transport Minister has no power to interfere in the affairs of the authority in the matter of grant of permit. It has been denied that the authority has decided not to consider any application along with Smt. Hurmazi Begums renewal application and to renew her application outright.;