- (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by Govind Singh, who was formerly an operator of Bikaner-Salasar route in the following circumstances:-2. Govind Singh had two non-temporary stage carriage permits on Bika-ner --Salasar route, one of which was valid upto August 31, 1974, while the other was valid upto June 1, 1975 after their renewal. I am concerned in the present case with the last mentioned permit of the petitioner, which was renewed by the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as 'the R. T. A. ') dated September 5, 1972 upto June 1, 1975 with the condition that the route of the said permit shall be rendered ineffective from Bikaner to nokha upon the publication of the nationalisation scheme, It is admitted by the petitioner that Bikaner --Nokha portion of the route of the petitioner's aforesaid permit formed part of the bus route from Jodhpur to Bikaner, in respect of which a nationalisation scheme was approved by the State Government and was published either towards the end of 1973 or towards the beginning of 1974. The said permit of the petitioner was thus curtailed in respect of Bikaner-- Nokha portion and the route of the said permit thereafter remained only from nokha to Salasar. Subsequently, the State Transport Undertaking published another nationalisation scheme relating to Jaipur-Bikaner via Sikar, Salasar and nokha route, of which Nokha-Salasar route formed a portion. Sometime later, the nationalisation scheme relating to Jaipur-Bikaner route was also approved by the State Government and the same took effect from October 16, 1974. As a consequence of the implementation of the aforesaid nationalisation scheme, the r. T. A. by its order dated October 19, 1974 cancelled the aforesaid permit of the petitioner relating to Nokha-Salasar route and directed him to surrender his permit. Thus the case of the petitioner is that his stage carriage permit relating to Nokha-Salasar route, which was otherwise valid upto June 1, 1975. was prematurely cancelled on account of the coming into force of the nationalisation scheme relating to Jaipur-Bikaner route, including Nokha-Salasar portion thereof.
(2.) THE petitioner submitted an application for the grant of an alternative route permit on Bikaner --Sinthal route (hereinafter referred to as 'the route'), in lieu of his permit relating to Nokha --Salasar route. The respondent No. 3 also submitted an application for the grant of a non-temporary stage carriage permit on the route. The applications of the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 for grant of permits on the route, along with other applications, were considered by the R T. A. in its meeting held on November 5, 1974. After considering the merits and demerits of all the applicants, including the respondent No. 3, the R. T. A. granted a permit to the petitioner and assigned three reasons for giving preference to the petitioner over all other applicants for grant of permits on the route, namely,-- (i) the petitioner was a displaced operator of Nokha -- Salasar rouce. (ii) he had a ready vehicle; and (iii) he did not possess any other permit on any other route.
(3.) THE respondent No. 3, feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid decision of the r. T. A. , filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') and prayed that the permit on the route should be granted to him instead of the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 represented before the Tribunal that he was also a displaced operator in the same manner as the petitioner and that he was also possessed of a ready vehicle which was of a later model than that of the petitioner. It was also stated on his behalf before the Tribunal that he was an unemployed Engineer and that he was himself a licensed driver. The Tribunal accepted the contention of the respondent No. 3 and on the aforesaid four grounds held that the respondent no. 3 should have been preferred to the petitioner for the grant of a permit on the route. Consequently, the Tribunal accepted the appeal preferred by the respondent No. 3 before it, set aside the order passed by the R. T. A. and granted a permit on the route to the respondent No. 3 for his ready vehicle No. RJF 3279 of 1971 model. 5. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the aforesaid order of the Tribunal and the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent No. 3 is not at all a displaced operator and as such he should not have been preferred by the Tribunal as against the petitioner. Learned counsel further argued that the selection made by the R. T. A. in the present case was proper and that the Tribunal was not at all right in holding that the respondent No. 3 had a preferential claim in the matter of grant of a permit on the route and that being an unemployed Engineer is not a relevant consideration for the grant of a stage carriage permit.;