DAVE, C. J. - (1.) THIS is a special appeal by Sharma Roadways under sec. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, against the judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court dated 20th April, 1965.
(2.) THE facts, which are no longer in dispute between the parties, are as follows: - THE petitioner was a bus operator on the route Taranagar to Sadulpur in Bikaner region. He was holding two permits on that route. THEre were eight other permit holders on the same route. Besides this route, there was another route from Sardarsahar to Taranagar and there were five permit holders on that route. Four persons including respondent No. 1 Sohanlal and respondent No. 2 Messrs Goldsmith Transport Company applied for one permit each to the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner, on Sardarsahar to Sadulpur route. This Sardarsahar to Sadulpur route was nothing but a combination of the routes mentioned above, namely, Sardarsahar to Taranagar and Taranagar to Sadulpur. THE substance of the said four applications was published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated 8th October, 1964. THEse applications came to be considered by the Regional Transport Authority on 14th December, 1964 and the applications of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were rejected on the ground of default because they did not appear on the date fixed for hearing. Aggrieved by that order dated 14th December, 1964, they filed appeals before the Transport Appellate Tribunal. THE Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeals of respondents. Nos. 1 and 2 and granted one permit to each one of them. THE petitioner Sharma Roadways then filed a writ application in this court challenging the validity of the order of the Appellate Tribunal. THE said writ application came for hearing before a learned single Judge who dismissed it on 20th April, 1965 on the ground that the petitioner had not filed any representation before the Regional Transport Authority and, therefore, he was not entitled to maintain the writ application. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the Regional Transport Authority had failed to comply with the provisions of sec. 57 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 inasmuch as the time and place at which the applications of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were to be considered, were not notified and that, under the circumstances, the learned single Judge ought to have entertained the writ application and set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal. In reply, it has been urged on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 that according to the first part of sec. 57 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Regional Transport Authority had published the substance of the applications in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 8th October, 1964 and it was also mentioned therein that their applications were available for inspection at the office of the Regional Transport Authority. In spite of this publication in the gazette dated 8th October, 1964, the appellant did not care to file any representation against the applications. The appellant was, therefore, not entitled to raise any objection before the Regional Transport Authority under sec. 57 (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act and if he could not be heard as of right by the Regional Transport Authority, he was much less entitled to file a writ application before this Court. It is urged that, under the circumstances, the learned single Judge had not committed any error in dismissing the writ application and this Court should not interfere with that order in appeal. We have considered the objection raised by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and we think that it is correct. Sec. 57 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that on receipt of an application for a stage carriage permit or a public carrier's permit, the Regional Transport Authority shall make the application available for inspection at the office of the authority and shall publish the application or the substance thereof in the prescribed manner together with the notice of the date before which the representations in connection therewith may be submitted. The perusal of the Rajasthan Gazette dated 8th October, 1964 shows that the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner Region, did publish the substance of the applications of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and also of the other two applications. It was also mentioned in that notification that the applications in original were available for inspection in the office of the Regional Transport Authority on any working day during office hours. Then, it was further notified that all objections or representations in connection with the applications should be communicated in writing to the Regional Transport Authority within thirty days of the publication of the notification in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. Now, in view of this notification, it was obligatory on the part of the appellant to file a representation in writing if he had any objection about the grant of the application. Sec. 57 (4) provides that no representation in connection with an application referred to in sub-sec. (3) of sec. 57 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 representations. It is obvious that this sub-section requires that (1) the representation should be filed in writing (2) that it should be submitted before the appointed date and (3) a copy thereof should be furnished simultaneously to the applicant by the person making such representation. If these conditions are not fulfilled, the representation would not be considered by the Regional Transport Authority. It is not denied by learned counsel for the appellant before us that his client failed to file a representation in writing before the Regional Transport Authority before the appointed date. It is also admitted that the question of giving a copy to the respondents, under the circumstances, did not arise. It is true that sub-sec. (3) of sec. 57 also required that the Regional Transport Authority must mention the time and place at which the application and any representation are to be considered. The learned single Judge has not gone into the question whether the Regional Transport Authority had complied with the provisions of the second part of this sub-section and we also need not go into that question because the petitioner's writ application was dismissed on the ground that he had failed to make the representation before the Regional Transport Authority. We agree with the learned single Judge that sec. 57 (4) makes it obligatory on the part of the persons, who wants to contest the application for permit, to make a representation in writing before the appointed date and furnish a copy thereof to the applicant, and if he fails to do so,, his representation would not be considered by the Regional Transport Authority. This sub-sec. (4) provided a specific remedy to the petitioner and if he failed to avail of it, he was not entitled to file any writ application. We find no good reason to interfere with the or the learned single Judge and the appeal is, therefore, hereby dismissed. We leave the parties to bear their own costs. .;