Bapna, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) THE case of the five petitioners, M/s. Vijai Singh,roormal, Nizam-uddin, M/s Jagdish Narain Om Prakash, and Hanuman Bux Pareek, leaving aside irrelevant matters, is that they along with 17 others held permits for the Jaipur - Alwar route, which were due to expire on 30th September, 1956. THEy applied for their renewal on or about the 11th July, 1956. THE grievance of the petitioners is that instead or renewing the permits their applications for renewal were advertised in the Rajasthan Gazette of 30th August, 1956, and objections were invited. THEir further grievance is that the Regional Transport Authority in its meeting, which took place on the 29th of September, 1st of October, and 5th of October, 1956, recorded a resolution that the traffic needs on this route had increased, and there should be 9 trips from each side between Jaipur and Med. It was recorded that this required 20 buses to run daily on this route, and provision had to be made for weekly holidays to the staff, for leave to the staff, for break downs, for extra traffic on account of fairs and marriages, for reserve parties etc. , and, therefore, in all 30 buses should be given permits on this route in order to provide ten services daily. Of the previous bus owners, permits of 13, which included the 5 petitioners, were renewed for a period of three years. THE permit of 3 were temporarily renewed pending certain enquiry against the allegations of illegal transfer of permits, and the renewal of one permit was disallowed as the permit-holder had allowed somebody else to use the permit. The contention of the petitioners is that they had incurred the wrath of the R. T. A. by questioning their decision to increase the number of vehicles made by their resolution of 3rd and 4th December, 1954, by a writ petition, which was allowed by this Court and a direction was given for re-examination of the circumstances relating to an increase in the number of permits by the Appellate Authority, and that authority took into consideration the principles which were laid down in the judgment of this Court, and cancelled the permits of 10 persons, 7 of whom were previously granted permits by the R. T. A and 3 by the appellate authority. It was alleged that the R. T. A. wanted to wreak vengeance on the petitioners, and with that object had raised the number of stage carriages to be permitted on this line from 22 to 30. The Regional Transport Authority and 7 other persons, who were granted temporary permits for four months pending a fresh advertisement of the route for granting 8 more permits were made parties to the petition. The R. T. A. did not file any reply, but six of the respondents have contested this petition, and it is urged on their behalf that the traffic on this route bad considerably increased since 1953, when the previous permits were granted, and as many as 125 prosecutions for overloading in the year 1955-56 had been pending, and that the R. T. A. had genuine reasons to believe that there was a need for increasing the number of trips on this route, and the decision given by them to increase the number of stage carriages from 22 to 30 was lightly made. In support of this reply 8 certified copies of judgments of Magistrates were produced, in which the driver, conductor or the owner was prosecuted for taking passengers in excess of the number permitted to be carried by the bus. Learned counsel for the applicant? contended that the R. T. A. had no material before them to increase the number of stage carriages on this line, and that the number of carriages stated to be required for weekly holiday, leave, and breakdowns was far in excess of the number which may have been necessary. It was also contended that it was upto the bus owner to make arrangement in case his staff is on holiday or leave, or the bus had a break-down, in default whereof the law provided lor his prosecution and, therefore, any increase beyond the number of buses required lor the actual trip was not required to be made. As to the increase in the traffic need, the observation of the R. T. A. is as follows - There have been frequent complaints about overloading on this route. An inquiry was conducted by A. R. T. O in this regard. Buses carrying excess traffic have been challanged a number of times. Traffic on this route is also rapidly increasing as a result of inconvenience of exising railway timings. After making the above observation the R. T. A. decided to increase the number of services on this route from 6 to 9 on the Jaipur - Alwar route on each side, and one bus from each side was to run between Jaipur and Med. This, according to the R. T. A. , required 20 buses to run daily. It was then observed that 8 buses were required for weekly holidays to staff, and another 3 to provide for leave to staff, and that 25% of the strength, that is 5 buses were required in case of possible breakdowns and to meet extra traffic on account of fairs, marriages and reserve parties and other needs. The number calculated came to 31, but the R. T. A. held that there was need for at least 30 buses on this route to run 10 services daily on either side. Learned counsel for the respondents explained that if 22 buses were required to run six services on either side, and if the R. T. A. 's decision to run 10 services daily on either side is correct, the decision to give permit for 30 buses was not beyond the requirement of the route. The observation made by the R. T. A. shows that they had data before them on which to come to a conclusion that the needs of the traffic had increased. The first portion of the observation finds support in the eight decided cases, certified copies whereof had been produced by the respondents. The findings in these cases, in every one of which the driver, conductor or owner was convicted, show that overloading was done on this route from about 15% to 50% of the permitted number of passengers. There is further a reference to an enquiry conducted by the A. R. T. O. It may be mentioned that, it is one of the duties of the A. R. T. O. to see to the proper running of stage carriages. The third observation is supported by the affidavit of Bhoor Singh, one of the respondents, that about 125 challans of overloading are even no v pending in various courts having jurisdiction over this route. The inconvenience of railway timings did not require any enquiry beyond a perusal of the railway time-table. There was thus material, and we will say good material, for the R. T. A. to come to the conclusion that an increase in the number of services on this route was required in the interests of the public generally. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that no notice of this desire of the R. T. A. to increase the number of stage carriages on this route was given to the petitioners. Sec. 48 of the Motor Vehicles Act permits a Transport Authority to fix the number of stage carriages on any specified route within a region, and this provision authorises the R. T. A. to vary the number of stage carriages, which may be permitted on any route. This provision authorises to fix the number after taking into consideration the matters set forth in sub-sec. (1) of sec. 47. Sub-sec (1) of sec. 47 mentions six matters to which the R. T. A. shall have regard, and also authorises that authority to take into consideration any representation made by persons already providing road transport facilities along or near the proposed route or routes or by any local authority or police autho-rity within whose jurisdiction any part of the proposed route or routes lies or by any association interested in the provision of road transport facilities, when it has to decide whether to grant or refuse a stage carnage permit to any person. The Regional Transport Authority should no doubt take into consideration if any representation is made by persons who already provided road transport even in the case of increase or decrease in the number of stage carriages There is no allegation that any written representation was made, but it is argued for the petitioners that they had no knowledge that the R. T. A. will take up this question. The advertisement of the renewal was made in the Gazette of 30th August, 1956, and it was notified that objections could be preferred within 30 days, and under sec. 5? these objections are available for inspection by any person interested at the office of the R. T. A. In the present case, some objections were preferred, for opening portion of the resolution says that the applicants and the objectors were heard. What actually those objections were is not clear, but the petitioners are certain that the seven persons to whom the temporary permits were granted were those objectors, and they are referred in the last but one para of the resolution as being applicants for permits on this route. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that these seven persons had only applied for grant of temporary permits on the route because of the increased needs of the traffic. The question, therefore, whether the needs of the traffic had increased or not was before the R. T. A,, and according to the observation in the opening paragraph of the resolution the applicants and the objectors were heard. It was not necessary that previous intimation of the desire to vary the number of stage carriages should be notified to any person, and at any rate in the present case the applicants bad been heard by the R. T. A. before the R. T. A. came to the conclusion that an increase in the number of services was required on this route. As stated earlier they had good reasons to come to that conclusion. Learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the R. T. A. had in 1954 tried to increase the number of buses on this route and ultimately that move came to be rejected when the Appellate Authority reconsidered the matter in the light of the judgment of this Court, and that judgment was only pronounced by the Appellate Authority on the 10th of August, 1956, by which seven permits granted by the R. T. A. were cancelled, and 3 granted by the Appellate Authority were also cancelled, and that nothing had happened between this short period of a month and a half to show any increase in the necessity. The argument is founded on a wrong view of the facts. The R. T. A. had previously decided to increase the number of permits by its resolution of 3rd and 4th December, 1954, by the issue of seven more permits, and the Appellate Authority decided to issue three more pern its on the same route, and when the matter came before this Court certain principles were laid down, for determining the necessity of the increase of permits. These were - 1. Whether the existing services are just remunerative enough to provide a living to those who operate them subject to proper travelling facilities for the public and whether the result of the addition of new services would be that the old services would go out of the field as it would no longer pay to run them or the facilities provided to the public dwindle and the standard of stage carriage would go down in the matter of comfort and amenities to the public ? 2. How many additional buses over and above the total number of daily trips should be given permits with a view to allow for weekly holiday to the driver and the conductor ? 3. How many additional buses over and above the total number of daily trips are required to allow for the occasion when the staff goes on leave ? 4. How many additional buses over and above the total number of daily trips are required to allow for the occasion when some of the buses are out of order ? The Appellate Authority, which decided to cancel the ten permits previously granted did so after taking into consideration the principles that had been laid down by the High Court, and it was held that unless the number of present daily trips was increased, there was no scope for more buses on this route. In the resolution of the Board, which is now challenged, the basic objection to the increase in the number of buses has been removed by the decision to increase the number of trips on either side, and that increase is supported by reasons which cannot be brushed aside. The grounds on which the increase was disallowed on the previous occasion do not exist now, and fresh reasons have been given, and grounds have come into existence, which led the R. T. A. to increase the number of trips on this route. The increase in the number of trips automatically raises the question whether the number of permits should be increased. Besides the requirement of 20 buses daily, the R. T. A. has given reasons why permits should be granted to 30 buses. The contention of learned counsel for petitioners that permits for additional buses were not required for any of the three reasons given by the R. T. A. is devoid of any force. The fact that the permit-holder is liable to prosecution if he does not provide staff who may go to enjoy a weekly holiday or go away on leave whether with or without pay, or if his bus has broken down, can afford scant satisfaction to the travelling public, if they find that the bus is not there when they wish to travel. The Motor Vehicles Act or the Rules thereunder do not compel the permit-holders to employ extra staff to provide tor leave or weekly holiday, and, therefore, the R. T. A. cannot depend upon the goodwill of the permit-holder alone in this respect. It may be that the permit-holders not find it convenient to grant weekly holidays to the staff or leave to the staff, but in a welfare State is a contingency which must be taken notice of at least by the authorities who have to fix the number of buses on the route. It may be stated that the principles which were to be considered were stated in the judgment of the High Court, and the matter of leave of the staff was one of such principles which was to be taken into consideration by the R. T. A. Then as to the provision for breakdowns, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the R. T. A. has not mentioned the instances when breakdowns had taken place. In our opinion, it was not necessary to do so, for anybody who owns a car knows that breakdowns do occur, and the older the vehicle gets, more are the chances for breakdowns. The petitioners had been running their vehicles previously, and the chances of breakdown are certainly more now than what they were before.
(3.) IT was next contended that no provision need have been kept for increased traffic on account of fairs, marriages or reserve parties, for sec. 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act permitted grant of temporary permits. Sec. 62 is an enabling provision authorising the R. T. A, to grant temporary permits without following the elaborate procedure laid down in sec. 67, bus that does not enable the R. T. A. to produce a bus or stage carriage when it may be required for this extra traffic. The R. T. A. could not remain content with the hope that some bus owner would immediately turn up and ask for a temporary permit when there was extra need for traffic on account of marriages or reserve parties or other occasions. Taking into consideration that marriage parties are a common phenomenon and that reserve parties also require bus service now and then, and that the fairs also do come up, these needs of extra traffic have to be taken into consideration in order to fix the number of stage carriages to be run on any particular line. But these buses by themselves are sometimes insufficient on occasions of fairs and it is then that if somebody wants a temporary permit the R. T. A. has authority to giant it. In our opinion good reasons have been given by the R. T. A. to fix the number of buses on this route at 30. It was argued at one stage that the R. T. A. had granted temporary permits to the very 7 permit-holders to whom it had granted earlier, and whose permits had subsequently been cancelled. This fact is, however, of no consequence for the R. T. A. can only grant permits to those who apply. The R. T. A. had decided that there were 8 vacancies, and only 7 had applied, and these happened to be the persons who had previously been granted permits, but which came to be cancelled. It may be that it is these persons who are interested in this line, and naturally keep themselves awake and applied for the permits and got them. It was contended that the applications for renewals should not have been advertised. The contention is wholly erroneous, for sec. 58, sub-sec. (2) directs that an application for renewal has to be dealt with as if it were an application for permit, and an application for permit has to be advertised according to sec. 57. It was next contended that the R. T. A. had committed error in granting temporary permits for four months to 7 persons as temporary permits could only be granted under sec. 62 for specific temporary needs. It has been held by a decision of this Court in Khandari Babu vs. Regional Transport Authority (1) and mare recently in Jairam Das vs. R. T. A , Jodhpur (2) that when there is a shortage in the necessary number of vehicles on the route, the Regional Transport Authority would be right in providing for a temporary need and grant a temporary permit till a regular permit was granted after going through the procedure laid down under sec. 57. This is exactly what the R. T. A. has done lor alter granting temporary permits to seven persons it has decided to advertise the route for grant of permanent permits for 8 stage carriages in addition to those whose permanent permits have already been renewed. There is no force in any of the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners, and the petition is accordingly dismissed with costs to the contesting respondents. . ;