P.C. Jain, J. - (1.) MADAN Singh has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Jullundur, dated 24th July 1969 (copy Annexure 'A' to the petition).
(2.) BRIEFLY the facts as alleged in the petition are that the Petitioner is carrying on the business of passenger transport on the authority of permit No. 195/MCR/64 in respect of his tempo No. PND -1178, issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Jullundur, on regular basis, for a distance of seven miles from Goraya to Phagwara, in the year 1964. It is further stated that in the year 1969, the State Transport Authority Punjab, issued instructions to the Regional Transport Authority that permit should not be issued to tempo rickshaws for operation on the G.T. Road or where the local bus of the Punjab Roodways is operating Between Goraya and Phagwara a local bus of the Punjab Roadways is operating and one more tempo owned by Ved Parkash is also operating. Without specifying any date, it is further alleged that one Nirmal Singh made an application for the grant of the contract carriage permit on Goraya -Phagwara -barapind route but the same was rejected on the ground that local bus of the Punjab Roadways was likely to operate and issuing of contract carriage permit was against the policy of the Government. Now the Regional Transport Authority has granted one contract carriage permit each in favour of Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 for Goraya -Phagwara -Barapind and Goraya -Phagwara respectively by its order dated 24th July, 1969 (copy Annexure 'A' to the petition). It is this order of the Regional Transport Authority, the legality of which has been challenged by the Petitioner on the grounds stated in the petition. In the return filed by Shri Amar Singh Grover, Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, the material allegations made in the petition have been controverted.
(3.) MR . Laxmi Grover, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, contended that the impugned order of the Regional Transport Authority, dated 24th July, 1969, was illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice as permits were granted to Respondents 2 and 3 without issuing any proper notice. According to the learned Counsel, this act of Respondent No. 1 was prejudicial to the Petitioner's right and he had no other remedy but to invoke the powers of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. On the other hand it was contended by the learned Advocate General as well as Mr. Wasu, learned Counsel for Respondents 2 to 3, that the permits were issued in accordance with law, and the Petitioner was not entitled to question the correctness of the impugned order as no objection was raised by him before the appropriate authority.;