- (1.) THIS is an application by Sanwal Ram under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Appellate' Tribunal of the State transport Authority.
(2.) THE case of the applicant is briefly this. He was the holder of a stage carriage permit on Balotra-Siwana-Mokalsar route. A complaint was made against him by opposite parties Nos. 3 to 7 to the effect that the applicant was not following the rotation fixed by the Regional Transport Authority and that he had plied his bus on some other route to carry a marriage party without obtaining a special permit for the same. Consequently, the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur, suspended the permit of the applicant for two weeks under Section 60 of the Motor Vehicles act, thereupon, opposite parties Nos. 3 to 7 who, we are told, are other bus operators on the same route, preferred an appeal under Section 64 to the Appellate Tribunal, Their appeal apparently was that the punishment given by the Regional Transport authority was not severe enough and should be enhanced. Thereupon, the appellate Tribunal heard the appeal and enhanced the punishment inasmuch as it cancelled the permit of the present applicant. This order was passed in January, 1957 and thereupon the applicant came to this Court in April, 1957. It may be mentioned that his permit expired in March, 1957, but his contention is that if the order of the Appellate Tribunal cancelling his permit stands, he may be at a disadvantage when the question of filling the vacancy caused by the expiry of his permit comes up for consideration,
(3.) NO reply has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties in this case. The only question for consideration is whether the Appellate Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The provision as to appeals is contained in Section 64 of the Act, and the case can only come under Clause (b) of that section which reads as follows: "any person aggrieved by the revocation or suspension of the permit or by any variation of the conditions thereof may. . ,. . . . ,. . ,. . . . . . . appeal to the prescribed authority. . . . . . . . . " Now, this clause came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in Jai ram Dass v. Regional Transport Authority, Civil Writ No. 105 of 1956, D/- 30-41957: ( (S) AIR 1957 Raj 312) (A), wherein it was pointed out that where there is a revocation or suspension, only the permit holder would be the person aggrieved, but where the case was of variation in the conditions of the permit, other persons like rival permit holders on that route or in that area would also be aggrieved and may have a right of appeal. Now, this was a case of suspension of a permit and therefore opposite parties Nos. 3 to 7 who were rival permit holders cannot be said to have been aggrieved by the order suspending the permit of the applicant for a certain period.;