- (1.) THESE two petitions arise out of the same facts. The parties have produced documents favourable to each, but their genuineness has not been disputed. The two petitions are disposed of by one and the same judgment.
(2.) CERTAIN applications were received for starting Bus Service in Jaipur City, and the R. T. A , Jaipur, by Resolution No. 412 of 1953, dated 5th/9th/l0th September, 1953, decided that (1) Messrs Central Transport Service, Jaipur. (2) Messrs United Motors, Jaipur, and (3) Messrs Jai Hind Cooperative Society Ltd , Jaipur, be sanctioned stage carriage permits for six buses each to run bus service in the City of Jaipur within the municipal limits on the following conditions - (1) That each applicant shall put in six buses 1953 model within 3 months of the sanction. (2) That the body of each bus shall be omnibus type conforming to the specifications and design approved by the R. T. A. (3) That the approved routes in the City shall be grouped in 3 zones and each of the applicants shall ply his buses in each Zone in rotation for a period of one month at a time. It was further resolved that a Sub-Committee of Shri B. N. Bhargava and Shri N. N. Verma be consituted to examine and determine three zones of routes in the City. Messrs. United Motors went out of the field. The Central Transport Service and the Jai Hind Co-operative Society Ltd. were given extensions of time within which to put new buses on the road, and in the meanwhile were granted temporary permits. The Central Transport Service put in two new buses by the 9th of March, 1954, and agreed to put the remaining four new buses by and by. 1 be Jai Hind Co-operative Society did not put in any new bus on the road, and the extensions granted to it also expired. The Society sought the permission of the Regional Transport Authority by application of 25th March, 1954, for extension of time in respect of their temporary permits till they were able to put in new buses, which they hoped to do in one month's time, but the extension was not allowed by the R. T. A. by Resolution No. III of 3rd April, 1954. Another application was made by the Society on the 20th of April, 1954, for grant of temporary permits till they were able to put new buses on the road. A second application was made on the same day for waiving the condition of putting in new buses on the road. They said therein that they bad with them buses of 1949-50 model in a fit condition, and urged that the requirement of a particular model was not in consonance with the Motor Vehicles Act, and referred to certain decisions of the Appellate Authority. The R. T. A. considered the matter in their meeting of 26/27th April, 1s54, and by resolution No. 167 of 1954 rejected the two applications with an observation that - " (a) The applicant failed to produce 6 buses of the model ordered by the R. T. A. within 3 months time allowed to him. Not only that, one month's extension allowed has also expired and the sanction of the R. T. A. stands liable to revocation on this account alone under sec. 60 of M. V. Act read with rule 86 (b) of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules. The fact that the applicant did not press his application for extention of time to produce buses in the last meeting on 3rd April, 1954, clearly indicates that he did not base his case on the ground which he has now taken and the result is that this application by which the applicant proposes to offer for the first time three buses of 1949-50 model and the two of 1944-46 model for issue of permits thereon is not within time in view of the provisions of Rule 86 (b) of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules. (b) The restriction of model imposed by this Authority is justified under law and entirely in the public interest. For city service vehicles are required to be of omnibus type and thus of a different type of body. The buses offered by the applicant do not appear to be of omnibus type, besides being 5 to 10 years old and not suitable for city bus service. (c) For a sufficiently long time that is 3 years there is no bus service on more than to routes in the city namely Manak Chowk - Genral Post Office and Manak Chowk to Secretariat. It will take time before all the 7 or more routes are developed. The content tion of the applicant that there is immediate demand of 20 buses to be put in the city is not correct. The demand is not so immediate and particular as may warrant issue of temporary permits to the applicant. " The Society filed an appeal, which was rejected with an observation that - "r. T. A. rightly published a notification that omnibus type brand new buses will be required to be put in. Accordingly applications were received and R. T. A. granted permits on this condition and all the parties agreed to it. If the appellants had not consented they would have certainly not at all asked for any extention. Thus application for relaxation of the condition imposed was merely an afterthought. Apart from this Regional Transport Authority was also competent to lay such a condition keeping in view the question of public convenience in such a big city. Since the appellant was fully aware from all corners that they had to put buses of latest model, it was not desirable for them to back out from their agreement later on. The appellant was also not granted any extension to put new buses, hence they are debarred to plead anything now. " This decision was given by the Appellate Authority on 14th April, 1955. The Society thereafter made another application to the R. T. A. on the 9th of May, 1955, that the Society had tried to obtain permission to put in buses of old models, as it considered permissible under certain previous decision of the S. T. A. , but as the decision by the Appellate Tribunal had gone against them, they were prepared to put on the road buses of the new model, the first two of such they would procure by the 1st of June, 1955, and thereafter they were in a position to procure one every month. They prayed that in the meanwhile they may be given temporary permits for their four buses. It was added that the Central Transport Service had also been permitted to run four old buses on temporary permits. This application by the Hind Cooperative Society was opposed and objected and to by the Central Transport Service, The R. T. A. by its Resolution No. 209 of 1955, passed in its meeting of 20th May, 1955, referred to the new prayer and the objection by the Central Transport Service, and observed that - "the resolution relied on by Shri L. L. Sharma (Advocate for the Central Transport Service) was gone through by the members carefully. It does not say definitely anything about cancellation of permits sanctioned under resolution No. 412. Besides the appli cant is now prepared to put in the new buses of omnibus type as required by that resolu tion. It would be in public interest if this application to put new buses is accepted. " It was resolved by the R. T. A. that - "m/s. Jai Hind Co-operative Society Ltd. be allowed to put in the six new buses against the permits granted under resolution No. 412. They shall put in two new buses by the end of July, 1955, and the remaining four one every month thereafter. All buses shall be of omnibus type. Further resolved that in the meantime they shall be given temporary permits for their existing buses valid for three months. " The Central Transport Service filed an appeal against the order of the R. T. A. contained in their Resolution No. 209 of 1955 urging that the effect of Resolution No. 412 of 10th September, 1953, had come to an end in 1954, and the R. T. A. had no jurisdiction to revive that order, and proceed to allow the Jai Hind Co-operative Society Ltd. to put buses on the road, and that this action of the R. T. A. was going to affect the economic position of the appellant. This appeal was filed on the 7th of July, 1955. In the meanwhile the Jai Hind Co-operative Society put two new buses on the road, and a question came up as to what route should be adopted. The R. T. A. by Resolution No. 345 of 1955 resolved that - "m/s. Jai Hind be issued s/c permits valid for 5 years on the following two routes which are at present operated by them pending final decision regarding allocation of routes: - (1) Chandpole Gate to Jhotwara via Kacha Bundha. (2) Sanganeri Gate to Fatehtiba via Motidoongri Road. Further resolved that a committee of the following be appointed to examine the ques tion regarding fixing of routes, their num bers, allocation of routes to each party fixing stops, timings etc. and to give its reports: - (1) Shri K. N. Bhargava, S. E. , P. W. D. (2) Dr. Tarachand Gangwal. (3) Shri G. Datta, Secretry. " The appeal before the State Transport Authority was decided on 24th January, 1956. It was held that the plea of the Society that the condition of the model of bus was wrongly imposed was not correct, and that the Society could not reasonably be allowed to ply in rotation according to Resolution No. 412, as that Resolution could not be allowed to stand for such a long and indefinate period when no extension was granted to the Society, and that if Resolution No. 412 was to be taken into consideration, the matter should be considered afresh as in all 18 buses were to be plied and since then the traffic potentiality of the city might have increased. The S. T. A. further observed that as public would get more convenience by the granting of permits to the Society who had put in some buses of 1953 model, and was plying on other routes of the city, the question of cancellation of the permit of the Society did not arise. It was however observed that it would not be justifiable to allow the Society to ply in rotation with the appellant after such a long time as the latter had developed the route and spent some money in arranging bus stops. The operative portion of the order is that the appeal of the Central Transport Service be accepted to the extent that the Central Transport Service and the Jai Hind Co-operative Society Ltd. would continue to ply their buses (6 each) on their existing routes, and would put remaining buses of the description laid down by the R. T. A. by the end of that month. It was observed that the R. T. A. originally fixed the number of buses at 18 in 1953, out of which permits for only 12 buses had been granted and since then conditions might nave also changed. The R. T. A was directed to review the whole position after examining the traffic potentiality etc. in this regard. Writ Petition No. 35 of 1956 is by the Jai Hind Co-operative Transport Society Ltd. , and it is urged that Resolution No. 209 of 1955 was not open to appeal, and in any case there was no ground for appeal by the Central Transport Service, and the matter was still under consideration of the R. T. A. , as was apparent from their resolution No. 345 of 1955 It was consequently urged that the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 29th January, 1956, be set aside, as having been passed in excess of their jurisdiction. Notice of the above petition was received by the Central Transport Service some time in March, for we have their application asking for adjournment on 21st March, 1956. Thereafter Writ Petition No. 178 of 1956 was filed by the Central Transport Service on the 28th of September, 1956, in which the jurisdiction of the R. T. A. to permit the Jai Hind Co-operative Transport Society to put in new buses on the road by Resolution No. 209 of 1955 was challenged. It was urged that Resolution No. 167 of 1954 in effect amounted to revocation of the grant of permit made by Resolution No. 412 of 1953. It was urged that the application of the Society, dated 20th of May, 1955, could at best be considered to be a fresh application for grant of permit to certain new buses, which the Society proposed to put on the road, and when so considered they should have been the subject of notification and other procedure mentioned in sec. 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and in any case the Central Transport Service had objected to that application, and the order of the R. T. A. evidenced by Resolution No 209 of 1955 was in the nature of a grant of a fresh permit, and the Central Transport Service having opposed that grant before the R. T. A. had a right to file an appeal under sec. 64 (f) of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was contended that the Appellate Authority had no good ground to permit the Society to put new buses, but at any rate the condition imposed by the Appellate Authority restricting the buses of the Society to be plied on routes other than those on which the Central Transport Service had been playing their buses was correct in the circumstances. It was urged that if for any reason the order of the Appellate Authority dated 24th January, 1956, could be held to be beyond jurisdiction, then the Central Transport Service wanted to challenge the validity of the order of the R. T. A permitting the Society to put in new buses by Resolution No. 209 of 1955. The first point that arises for decision is whether the grant of permit to the Society was by Resolution No. 412 of 1953, and whether it stood revoked by Resolution No. 167 of 1954. It was urged by learned counsel for the Central Transport Service that the scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act is to permit applicants who have a stage carriage ready with them as also such persons who may not have the bus ready, but may acquire one within one month or such further time as the R. T. A. may be pleased to extend. The form of application printed at page 155, of the Government publication of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules 1951, was referred to, according to which if the vehicle is in the possession of the applicant, the certificate of registration is to be enclosed, but if the vehicle is not in the possession of the applicant, the fact is to be mentioned along with the acknowledgment that the applicant understood that the permit will not be issued until he has obtained possession of the vehicle and has produced the certificate of registration. It was contended that in the case of a person who possessed a vehicle and produced a certificate of registration along with the application, the order or the resolution accepting the application for stage carriage permit amounted to a grant of permit, but that in case of an applicant who has no vehicle in possession the order allowing his application is only conditional, and the grant of permit comes into existence when the registration certificate is accepted within the time permitted by Rule 86. This contention, in our opinion, has no force. It would create the greatest amount of uncertainty as to the period of limitation for appeals filed under sec. 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The acquisition of a stage carriage is a very costly affair, and in most cases the applicant would only think of a new bus if he is assured of a permit. According to the unamended Act, which was in force on the date on which the matters in issue were dealt with, sec. 46 referred to an application for stage carriage permit, sec. 47 to matters which the R T. A was to take into consideration in deciding whether to grant or refuse a permit, and sec. 57 relates to the grant or refusal of a permit. If the Transport Authority refuses an application for a permit, it has to give to the applicant in writing its reasons for the refusal. Sec. 64 provides for appeal by certain aggrieved persons against the grant or refusal to grant the permit and certain other matters. The time prescribed for the appeal is 30 days under Rule 1 08. Rule 86 permits an applicant who is not in possession of a vehicle duly registered to produce it within one month of the sanction by the R. T. A or such longer period as the Authority may specify. Since the period laid down in Rule 86 is flexible, the period of limitation would be as varied as the extension granted under Rule 86, if the date of production of the vehicle or its acceptance be considered to be the date of the grant of permit. Rule 86 is permissive. Clause (b) of that Rule contains the effect of non-production of the vehicle within the specified period. It says that no permit shall be issued until the registration mark of the vehicle is entered therein. The grant of the permit is made when the application for the stage carriage permit is allowed, but the issue of the permit is subject to the production of the registration mark, which, of course, can only be obtained when the vehicle is in the possession of the permit-holder. Cl. (b) also says that if this certificate of registration is not produced within the prescribed period, the authority may revoke its sanction of the application. The revocation is not automatic, but has to be recorded In the present case the Society took certain extensions, and thereafter was unable to put a new bus on the road. Its attempt for permission to put old buses failed, and the Resolution No. 167 of 1954 recorded that the expiry of the extension period had made the Society liable to an order for revocation of the sanction. This part of the order has been considered by the R. T. A. as not amounting to a revocation, when it purported to pass Resolution No. 209 of 1955. Resolution No. 167 of 1954 does not in so many words revoke it. This is of course conceded by learned counsel for the Central Transport Service, but the contention is that impliedly the sanction was revoked. By that time the United Motors had failed to put in any new bus on the road. The Central Transport Service had also not put more than two buses, and it may be that the Regional Transport Authority was passing time to see if the Jai Hind Co-operative Transport Society would think of putting in any new bus. The resolution so far as it stands purports to reject their representation for giant of temporary permits for existing buses and for issue of a permit for reconditioned buses. In any case, when the R. T. A. received an application from the Jai Hind Co-operative Society on the 9th of May, 1955 that it was prepared to put in new buses on the road the R. T. A. seems to have felt relieved at the prospect of the provision of a bus service for the city people. The original proposal of the R. T. A was for issuing 18 buses on the road in 1953, but by May, 1855, only one of the permit-holders could put in buses on the road. The application of the Society, dated 9th May, says that by that time the Bus service had two new buses and four old buses. In the reply filed by the Jai Hind Co-operative Transport Society to writ petition No. 178, certain dates are given as to when the new stage carriages were put on the road by the Central Transport Service, and the number of such stage carriages up to May, 1955, comes to 3. The Central Transport Service has not stated anywhere as to when they began putting their buses on the road, and if we take the reply off the Society into consideration, the Central Transport Service had also put in only 3 buses on the road by that time. The R. T. A. interpreted its own earlier order as not amounting to an order of cancellation of the permit, and went on to give extension of time to the Society for putting in their buses by July and onwards. If according to the above discussion the grant of the permit was made in September, 1953, the order of May, 1955, only purported to grant extension of period for securing new buses by the Society. The order which is appealable under sec. 64 is the order of grant of permit, and not of extension. it was urged by learned counsel for the Central Transport Service that even if the grant of the permit be deemed to have taken place in 1953, its conditions were varied in 1955, and the variations in the conditions of permit also gave rise to a right of appeal to the aggrieved party. In certain circumstances the variation in the conditions of permit also gives rise to a right of appeal, but in that case the person who desires to appeal must be the person who opposes the grant of permit. This is laid down in sec. 64, clause (f ). In the present case when the scheme originally took shape, the three applicants had all agreed to put in six buses each, and none of them had any complaint or objection to the permit being granted to the other. The Resolution of the R. T. A. No. 209 of 1955. therefore, did not give rise to a right of appeal to the Central Transport Service. In that view the order of the Appellate Authority, dated 24th January, 1956, was in exercise of jurisdiction not vested by law.
(3.) IT may be mentioned that the petition of the Central Transport Service was based on the ground that the other party not having taken any step towards placing their buses on the road, the Central Transport Service had taken various steps to popularise their bus service including construction of bus stands and had to incur certain expenditure and the other party had now come in the field to take advantage of it. The Regional Transport Authority had very rightly decided to go into the question by appointment of a committee by Resolution No. 345 of 1955. The opinion of the R. T. A. had not crystallised on that question, and the observations of the Appellate Authority in respect of the allocation of routes was likely to hinder the deliberations of the Committee, and the decision of the R. T. A. In the circumstances the grievance of the Central Transport Service, if any, can still be the subject of consideration by the R. T. A. As a result the petition No. 35 of 1956 by the Jai Hind Co-operative Transport Society Ltd. is allowed, and the order of the Appellate Tribunal, dated 24th January, 1956, in the appeal by the Central Transport Service is set aside. Writ Petition No. 178 of 1956 by the Central Transport Service is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs for some of the trouble has been brought by the Jai Hind Co-operative Transport Society Ltd. by its delayed tactics, and the Central Transport Service had no right to come to this Court. .;