R.K. Mitra, J. - (1.) In this petition, prayer was made for the issuance of a writ mandamus directing the respondent authorities, the respondent No. 3 in particular, to cancel the decision of the authority being Annexure P -3 to the petition, and also to take fresh steps to dispose of the application of the petitioner in compliance with the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and accordingly grant permit in favour of the Petitioner. The petitioner made an application for the grant of a permanent stage carriage permit in a proposed route. The petitioner came before the court, and by an order dated March 12, 2001, the Regional Transport Authority, hereinafter referred to as the R.T.A. for short, was directed to consider the application of the petitioner and to dispose of the matter. The respondent authority after hearing the petitioner, by a resolution dated May 24. 2001. rejected the prayer of the petitioner upon giving reasons. The reasons for the rejection were principally on the basis of findings of the respondent authorities that, a huge number of buses are playing in different routes overlapping the route prayed for and that the respondents felt that it will not be possible to formulate a suitable time table for plying the bus and that any attempt to do so will cause total dislocation of the passenger service of the area.
(2.) It was submitted by the advocate appearing for the petitioner, that both the grounds were bad in law, and he relied on the decisions reported in, 1993 (2) CLJ 229 and A. (1995) Allahabad 330. He argued, that under Sec. 71(3)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. unless the Central Government having regard to the number of vehicles, road conditions and other relevant matters, directed the R.T.A. by notification published in the official gazette, to limit the number of stage carriage, the Regional Transport Authority had no power to do so. He contended, that today it was settled law that congestion or clash of time -table, could no longer be grounds for rejecting an application for the grant of permit. As regards the finding of the authority that it was not possible to formulate a suitable time -table, he submitted, that the authority in that event, was bound to afford the petitioner an opportunity to propose a fresh time -table, for further consideration and that they were not entitled to. as had been done, reject the prayer summarily. He also cited and relied on a decision reported In, AIR 1978 SC 861.
(3.) Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent authorities submitted, that in the case of Mithilesh Garg, reported in : AIR 1992 SC 443 the Supreme Court had decided, that an application for issuance of a permanent stage carriage permit was liable to be rejected on the ground of congestion and road condition. He submitted, that where the interest of the local people was being adequately served, arid where any further grant of permit would cause the passenger service in the route to be dislocated to the prejudice of the commuters, the concerned R.T.A. was within its powers, in law, to refuse to grant permits.;