R.N.Gurtu, J. - (1.) The following points have been referred to me upon a difference of opinion between my brother Tandon and my brother Nigam. (1) Does the provision in Section 57 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, that "an application for a stage carriage permit shall be made not less than six weeks before the date on which it is desired that the permit shall take effect" require that that date shall be stated in the application or otherwise?
(2.) If the answer to the first question be in the affirmative, is the requirement of stating the date" mandatory or merely directory?
(3.) Is an application which does not mention the date not an application complying with the requirements of the first alternative mentioned in Section 57 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act (Act IV of 1939) ? 2. The reference of these points has been made under the following circumstances. A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was made by Tara Singh seeking; the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing an order passed by the State Transport Authority Tribunal, U. P. dated 13-6-1955. It appears that a new route for running stage carriages was decided upon by the authorities in the year 1950. According to the petitioner this new route was created in October, 1950, but in the counter-affidavit it was suggested that this new route was decided upon on 27/28th November, 1950. On 13-8-1951 the petitioner made an application for a permit for running a stage carriage on this new route. That application was put up for objections in accordance with the procedure prescribed on 25-8-1951. Before final orders could be passed on that application the Regional Transport Authority on 3-9-1951 issued a notification inviting applications for three vacancies of stage carriage permits on this new route. The last date fixed for the receipt of such applications was 18-9-1951. The petitioner did not make any application in response to this notification. Other persons applied. The Regional Transport Authority considered all the applications including the application of the petitioner which he had made on 13-8-1951 and one permit was granted to the petitioner on the basis of his aforesaid application which, as already pointed out, was made prior to the notification and as far back as 13-8-1951 when the petitioner had come to know of the sanctioning of the new route. Thereupon an appeal was filed by one of the other applicants for a permit before the State Transport Authority Tribunal, and the State Transport Authority Tribunal on such appeal set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority granting a permit for a stage carriage to the petitioner on the basis of his application dated 13-8-1951 on the ground that the said application had not been presented after the issue of the notification above referred to inviting applications and that, therefore, the said application of 13-8-1951 was not a valid application and the Regional Transport Authority had no power to grant a permit to the petitioner. In consequence of the order of the State Transport Authority Tribunal aforesaid the present writ petition was filed. It came up for hearing before a learned single Judge and then a special appeal came up before a Bench consisting of my brethren Tandon and Nigam. The question that arose before them was whether the application dated 15-8-1951. was an application made in accordance with Section 57 (2), Part I, of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. My learned brother Tandon was of the view that it was a proper application whereas my learned brother Nigam took a contrary view. In consequence I have now to decide whether the application dated 13-8-1951 was a valid application according to Section 57 (2), Part I of the Motor Vehicles Act. No one now argues that it was an application under Part II of Section 57 (2). 3. I may point out that there is no dispute that if the application aforesaid is a valid application under Section 57 (2) Part I then it is an application which had to be considered by the Regional Transport Authority.;