Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. - (1.) The petitioners in these five cases have a common grievance. They allege that the State Transport Commissioner had rejected their applications for the grant of stage carriage permit on the Ropar - Amloh route via Morinda without giving them an opportunity of hearing. Even the order was not conveyed. Still further, the petitioners allege that respondent No. 3, who had somehow managed to get a copy of the order filed an appeal in August 1999. It was promptly allowed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal on September 30, 1999. The petitioners pray thE the orders dated December 18, 1997 and September 30, 1999 passed by the State Transport Commissioner and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal be quashed.
(2.) The admitted facts are that 85 applications had been received for the grant of stage carriage permits on the Ropar -Amloh route. None of these parties was given any notice of the date of hearing by the State Transport Commissioner. He had rejected all the 85 applications vide order dated December 18, 1997. The petitioners complain that no information regarding the order was given to them. Still further, it is the admitted position that respondent No. 3 has filed an appeal against this order viz. appeal No.328 of 1999 on August 27, 1999. This appeal was registered promptly on the same day and directions for issue of dasti summons to requisition the record were given. On September 10, 1999 the case was adjourned to September 20, 1999 and finally, on September 28, 1999 the case was ordered to be posted for hearing on September 30, 1999. On that date the appeal of respondent No.3 was allowed, Two return trips were granted.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that the action of the State Transport Commissioner in rejecting their petitions for the grant of permit was wholly arbitrary and contrary to Sec. 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and also Sec. 80(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It has been pointed out that no hearing was afforded. No reasons for rejecting the request of each of the petitioners were given in the order. No reason was ever communicated to any of the petitioners. In fact, the orders were passed on the wholly wrong assumption that the applications having been invited in the year 1992 the situation had changed and, therefore, it was not necessary to issue any permit. Still further, learned counsel submit that even the factum of rejection of the applications was not communicated to the applicants. On this premises, it is maintained that the basic order passed by the authority deserves to be quashed. Since the order had not been conveyed, the petitioners were unable to avail of the remedy of appeal. Respondent No. 3 had somehow managed to get a copy of the order. He could avail of the remedy of appeal. Others were deprived of the Opportunity.;