- (1.) BY this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the three petitioners seek to challenge the order of the State Transport Authority Rajas than, Jaipur dated 14-9-64 (Ex. 13 on the record), by which the State Transport Authority declined to interfere with an order of the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur dated 7/8-3-63 (Ex. 1 on the records), on the ground that the petitioners having not availed of the remedy of an appeal could not file the revision application.
(2.) THE three petitioners were holders of stage carriage permits on Mandawar hindaun route. Karauli Sir Mathura route and Karauli Gangapur route respectively. Non-petitioners Nos. 3 to 24 were permit holders on the Jaipur Karauli route. Their permits were affected by a scheme of rationalisation over the Jaipur Bharatpur route which was published in the Rajasthan Gazelle of 14-12-60. The scheme, however, could not he enforced immediately as the same was under challenge, first before this Court and then before the Supreme Court at the instance of the operators of that route Eventually with the disposal of the writ petitions and the appeal before the Supreme Court the scheme came into force from 17-4-62. Some of the non-petitioners in the meantime applied for renewal of their permits and were able to obtain them. Subsequently non-petitioners Nos. 3 to 16 applied for grant of Stage Carriage permits on Mandawar-Mahua Karauli Gangapur route and non-petitioners Nos. 17 to 24 applied for grant of permits on Mandawar-Mahua-Karauli-Sir-Mathura route. Their applications were published in the Rajasthan gazette for inviting objections and the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur, by its resolution No, 89 (Ex. 1), granted 8 permits on Mandawar Sir-Mathura route. It also granted 14 permits on Mandawar Gangapur route. Against this resolution of the Regional Transport Authority the present petitioners filed a revision application before the State Transport Authority Rajasthan. Jaipur. The State Transport Authority in its judgment dated 17-6-63 came to the conclusion that the Regional Transport Authority was in error in granting these 22 permits and consequently accepting the revision it quashed the order of the regional Transport Authority (Ex. 1) Against that judgment of the State Transport authority the non-petitioners filed two separate writ petitions in this court on the ground that the State Transport Authority had passed this order without giving them a proper opportunity of hearing. Those writ petitions were accepted by this court by its judgment dated 10-12-63, and it remanded the case to the State transport Authority with a direction to re-hear the matter after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the respondents. It was also directed by this Court that the preliminary objections of the respondents should also be heard and decided. After the case was remanded the State Transport Authority re-heard the matter, but this time it dismissed the revision application on two of the preliminary grounds. The essentials of the decision of the State Transport Authority are contained in the following passage: "coming to preliminary objections Nos. 3 and 4, we have gone through the rulings of the Rajasthan High Court and Madras High Court as relied upon by the counsel for the respondents. These rulings are clear enough on the point of maintainability of appeal in the present case The rajasthan High Court in the case reported in AIR 1955 Raj 19 (20) has held that if an objection has been made by somebody entitled to appeal under Clause (f) of Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act it gives right of appeal to others: falling in his line to file appeal under the said clause. In this case one of the operators Narainlal Badri Prashad filed written objections under Section 57. One of the petitioners also filed an appeal but it was later on withdrawn by him The Mysore High Court had held that even oral objections are enough to lay foundation for an appeal under Clause (f ). We find that the Regional Transport Authority has mentioned in their resolution that they heard the objections of the petitioners. As such foundation was laid down for filing appeal. In view of the above discussions, we conclude that there was a right of appeal for the petitioners and if they did not avail themselves of it, they cannot come before this Authority in Revision under Section 64-A in matters in which appeal lay. The preliminary objections 3 and 4, are, therefore upheld and the revision petitions are rejected being not maintainable"
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners, in challenging this decision of the Stale transport Authority, submits that, as no objections were filed by the petitioners, they could not have filed an appeal against the resolution of the Regional transport Authority before the Trans port Appellate Authority under Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter to be referred as the "act" and consequently they could invoke the re visional jurisdiction of the State Transport Authority under section 64-A of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the State Transport Authority has misdirected itself in applying Dholpur Cooperative transport and Multi Purpose Union Ltd. v. Appellate Authority Rajasthan, air 1955 Raj 19 and in thinking that even a person who had not filed any objection before the Regional Transport Authority could file an appeal to the State transport Authority under Section 64 of the Act, simply because someone else had filed an objection It is also pointed out that the State Transport. Authority was in error in thinking, on the basis of some observations made by the Mysore High court which the tribunal failed to point out and none of the counsel could refer to us, that even persons making oral objections before the Regional Transport authority could maintain an appeal under Section 64 of the Act, even though they had not filed any objection in writing in conformity with the provisions of Section 57 of the Act.;