- (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 220 of the Constitution by one Balaram against an order of the Transport Appellate Tribunal holding that no apeal lies against the order of the Regional Transport Authority granting permits to Lakhraj respondent no. 3 and Ram Prakash respondent No. 4 because they were dislodged operators to whom alternative permits were granted under Section 68-G (2) of the Motor vehicles Act.
(2.) THE petitioner is an existing operator on the Jaipur-Diggi-Deoli-Kekri route. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were operators on the Jaipur-Tonk-Deoli route who were dislodged as their route was nationalised. They suo molu filed application for the grant of a permit on the Jaipur-Diggi-Deoli-Bhilwara route These applications were published in the Gazette dated 12-7-1962 under Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act and objections were invited The petitioner filed an objection on 1-81962. The applications of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 and the objections of the petitioner were considered by the Regional Transport Authority at its meeting held on lst/2nd April, 1964 and permits were granted to the former by the order (Annexure 1) the extract from which is reproduced below: "having bestowed most earnest consideration and thought to the whole problem this Authority is of the opinion that the persons present pressing for the grant of alternative applications should be given alternative permits in order to save them suffering from any further loss and let not their vehicles be idle as a result of nationalisation of routes. They are prepared to give an undertaking in writing again that they have been offered these routes and they are prepared to accept them and will no longer claim any compensation, for their routes having been nationalised if they are given permits as applied for by them. Resolved therefore that the following applicants are granted alternative permits for the routes and permits given against their names to be effective for the period of the validity of their original permits on which they have not been able to run vehicles because of the scheme of the nationalisation, as per paras, dates, notification etc. given against their respective names: 4. Shri Lekhraj Jaipur-Bhihvara. 6. Shri Ham Prakash-Jaipur-Bhihvara. "
(3.) THE petitioner filed an appenl against the grant of the above permits before the Transport Appellate Tribunal. This appeal was rejecled by the following order: "the permit has been granted to the dislodged operators in lieu of their compensation to which they were entitled on the cancellation of their permit under Section 68-F (2 ). merely because the R T A did not follow this special procedure laid down in Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Road transport Services (Development) Rules, the order which has been passed under the provisions of Chapter IV A cannot be an appellable order The appeal is not maintainable and for this reason no further proceedings are therefore necessary. The appeal is consequently dismissed ";