D.P.GUPTA, J. - (1.) A new bus route from Jalore to Chitalwana via Bhagli (hereinafter referred to as 'the route') which is 168 kilometres long was opened by the Regional Transport Authority, Jodbpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the R.T.A.') and a limit of three permits and one return trip every day was fixed by the R.T.A. on the route. The R.T.A. invited applications for the grant of three permits on the route. The respondents Nos. 3 and 4 submitted applications for grant of permits on the route which ware duly published in accordance with law. The petitioner, who is an operator of an overlapping route, is alleged to have filed objections or representation on March 6, 1973 in respect of the applications of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, under Section 57(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The matter relating to the grant of non -temporary stage carriage permits on the route came up for consideration before the R.T.A. . on February 25. 1974 and two permits granted by it, one each to the respondents NOS. 3 and 4 The grantees were directed to avail of the permits sanctioned to them within a period of 60 days. It appears that one of the grantees submitted an application for and extension of time. The Secretary, R.T.A. by his order dated April 30, 1974 allowed thirty days' further time to Lalkhan respondent No 4 for availing of the permit granted to him on the route. Thereafter both the grantees applied for further extension of time but the Secretary, R.T.A. by his order dated July 30, 1974 refused to further extend the time far availing of the permits, granted by the R.T.A to the respondents Nos. 3 and 4.
(2.) THE petitioner filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') against and grant of permits to the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 on the route, while the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 also filed appeals against the condition imposed upon them by the R.T.A. of availing the permits granted to them within a period of to days. The Tribunal heard all the three appeals together and by its order dated February 6, 1973, while the Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner, it partly allowed the appeals filed before it by the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 and modified the resolution of the R.T.A. dated February 25, 1974 to the extent that the said respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were allowed to avail the permits granted to them on the route by the R.T.A., on four wheel drive vehicles, in view of the sandy and Kutcha nature of the route, and also allowed the grantees 60 days' further time from the date of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, to avail of the permits and place their four wheel drive vehicles on the route. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal dated February 6, 1975. The first contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner was that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal, against the order of the R.T.A. granting non -temporary stage carriage permits to the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 on the route, was erroneously dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that the appeal was not maintainable. An objection was taken before the Tribunal by the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 that the petitioner failed to furnish copies of the representation, alleged to have been submitted by him in the office of the R.T.A., simultaneously to the applicants for grant of permits, namely the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 and as such the foundation for filing of an appeal under Section 64(1)(f) of the Act was not legally laid by the petitioner. The Tribunal was of the view that the petitioner failed to submit prima facie evidence before it of the fact that he had simultaneously furnished copies of the representations, to respect of the applications of the respondents Nos. 3 and 4, to to them and as such a proper foundation for filing of an appeal under Section 64(1)(f) of the Act was not laid by the petitioner. The Tribunal thus held that the appeal preferred by the petitioner before it was not maintainable and dismissed the same on this ground alone.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had produced a certified copy of the objections or representation submitted by him before the R.T.A. dated March 6, 1973 and that in the aforesaid objections it has been mentioned that copies thereof were sent to the applicants for grant of permits by registered post. It was also pointed out that the learned Counsel for the petitioner was heard by the R.T.A. as an objector and no protest was made on behalf of the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in this respect before the RTA. However the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 had taken a specific objection before the Tribunal that copies of the representation, alleged to have been submitted by the petitioner before the R.T.A. in respect of their applications for grant of permits, were not furnished to them by petitioner. Yet the petitioner failed to produce before the Tribunal either the postal receipts or acknowledgement receipts in respect of sending the copies of his objections to the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 by registered post Even to the present writ petition, the petitioner has not produced the postal receipts or the acknowled gement receipts in respect of the delivery of copies of his objections to the respondents Nos. 3 and 4. In these circumstances, the inference drawn by the Tribunal that the petitioner failed to prove that he had simultaneous y furnished copies of his representation to the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 appears to be reasonable and derives to be upheld. It may also be observed in this connection that mere mention, in the objections submitted by the petitioner before the R.T.A, that copies thereof were being sent to the applicants for grant of permits by registered post, cannot lead to the conclusion that such copies must have actually been furnished or served upon the respondents Nos. 3 and 4, by or on behalf of the petitioner. Moreover, merely because the counsel for the petitioner was beard before the R.T.A. it would be difficult to draw a presumption to the effect that the petitioner must have furnished copies of his representation to the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 It was the duty of the petitioner to produce at least prima facie evidence of his having furnished copies of his representation or objections to the respondents Nos. 3 and 4, when a specific challenge in this respect was made before the Tribunal: The petitioner failed to satisfy the Tribunal that he sent copies of the representation, submitted by him before the R.T.A. in respect of the applications of the respondents within the prescribed time or soon thereafter. There is no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal on this score and it must be held that the appeal filed by the petitioner was rightly dismissed by the Tribunal as not maintainable because the petitioner was unable to prove that he laid proper foundation filing an appeal, required by the provisions of Section 64(1)(f) of the Act.;