- (1.) THIS is a special appeal by Lallu Singh and Bheru Ram against an order of a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing their writ petition filed against the grant of permits to Shankar Lal and Sahi Ram on Nokha-Panchu-Dharnokh route which completely overlaps their Nokha-Panchu route, they being exising operators on this route.
(2.) SAHI Ram, Shankar Lal and Ganesh Ram applied for grant of permits on the nokha-Pauchu-Dhamokh route. Lallu Singh and Bheru Ram made a representation to the Regional Transport Authority in writing against the grant of permits on this route. The representation was unsigned. Bheru Ram and Lallu Singh were represented by counsel on the date of hearing before the Regional Transport authority, but the latter was not heard on the ground that the representation was not signed. Permits were granted to Shankar Lal and Sahi Ram. Bheru Ram and lallu Singh appealed to the Transport Appellate Tribunal, but the appeal was rejected on the ground that the representation was unsigned. Then they filed the present writ petition which was rejected on the same ground.
(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Section 57 (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act runs as follows:- " 57 (4 ). No representation in connection with an application referred to in Subsection (3) shall be considered by the Regional Transport authority unless it is made in writing before the appointed date and unless a copy thereof is furnished simultaneously to the applicant by the person making such representation. " A perusal of the above sub-section goes to show that what is required is that the representation should be in writing. It is not prescribed that it should be signed by the person making the representation. We are accordingly of the opinion that the representation filed by Lallu Singh and Bheru Ram fulfils the requirement of section 57 (4) and should have been considered by the Regional Transport authority.;