- (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- (a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 16- 3-2007 passed by respondent No. 1 in Appeal No. 7/2004 as contained in Annexure No. 4 and the order dated 29/30-7-2003 passed by respondent No. 2 so far as it relates to remand of the matter. (b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respon dent Nos. 1 and 2 to transfer the permit No. 1053-k in the name of the petitioner. (c) Any other writ, order or direction may also be issued. (d) Costs of the writ petition may also be awarded to the petitioner.
(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to the writ peti tion are that one Chandra Bhushan Sharma was holding a regular stage carriage permit No. 1053-k in his name on Haldwani-Kaladhungi-Bazpur-Doraha-Sultanpur Patti- Kashipur route in respect of vehicle No. UMM-44, who could not manage the opera tion of the vehicle covered by the aforesaid permit due to his old age and he incurred heavy losses. The petitioner was his old friend. Sri Chandra Bhushan Sharma pro posed to sell the vehicle to the petitioner and asked him to provide the permit as a gift. The vehicle was purchased by the petitioner on payment of sale consideration and possession thereof was given to the petitioner by the seller. Chandra Bhushan Sharma remained notional holder of permit till the transfer of permit in the name of the petitioner. Sri Chandra Bhushan Sharma and the petitioner moved an application jointly on 20-9-2001 for the transfer of permit No. 1053-k in the name of the petitioner. The said appli cation remained pending before respondent No. 2 for a long time. Thereafter, report from the District Magistrate Udham Singh Nagar was sought, who in turn certified that no sale consideration in respect of the permit had passed on. As per report, the transfer was genuine and there was nothing objectionable. As such, according to the petitioner, there was no impediment in the transfer of permit in the name of the petitioner. During the pendency of the application, Chandra Bhushan Sharma died on 19-5-2003. The said application was placed in the meet ing of respondent No. 2 on 29/30-7-2003. The petitioner was present in the meeting, but the application was rejected by saying that instead of seeking transfer the applicant should have moved an application for grant of fresh per mit. Relevant extract of order dated 29/30-7- 2003 has been annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order aforesaid, the petitioner preferred an Appeal bearing No. II 2004 Kishan Lal v. Regional Transport Au thority (for short R. T. A.) and five others before respondent No. 1 on 19-1-2004. Before the appellate authority, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner-appellant that the R. T. A. had committed illegality by not allowing the joint application moved by the deceased Chandra Bhushan Sharma, who sold the vehicle to the petitioner and gifted him the permit of the vehicle and the petitioner for transfer of permit No. 1053-k.;