Wanchoo, C. J. - (1.) THIS is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution by Bajranglal and two others against the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur, in connection with the increase in the number of buses which are to ply on the Shahpura-Zahajpur-Deoli route.
(2.) THE case of the applicant is briefly this. There are three operators on this route and they have been plying buses on it for a long time. On the 26th February, 1957 the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur, passed a resolution increasing the number of stage carriages from 3 to 4 over this route. Thereafter it invited applications to fill up this vacancy. The contention of the applicants is that the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur, should have heard them before increasing the number of stage carriages on the route as required by sec. 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act and as it did not do so it should be forbidden from granting an additional permit to any one till it hears the applicants on the question of the increase in the number of stage carriages. The application has been opposed on behalf of the Regional Transport Authority and it has justified the increase on the ground of inadequate facilities for traffic and so on. It has also said that one of the petitioners viz. Bhun-garamal, himself applied for this permit and therefore he should not be heard to complain against the increase of stage carriages on this route by one. A similar question came before this court in Shahpura Bhilwara Bus Association, Bhilwara vs. The Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur (1 ). This Court then held that some kind of notice whether general or particular was necessary to the existing operators before the Regional Transport Authority increases the number of stage carriages on a route. This decision was given before the amendments to the Motor Vehicles Act in 1956. What was said by this Court in that case is in our opinion reinforced by the amendments that have been made in 1956. Sec. 47 now specifically provides under sub-sec. (1) (c) that the Regional Transport Authority will consider the adequacy of other passenger transport services before deciding to grant a stage carriage permit. Further under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 47 it is now provided that a Regional Transport Authority may, having regard to the matters mentioned in sub-sec. (1), limit the number of stage carriages generally or of any specified type for which stage carriage permits may be granted in the region or in any specified area or on any specified route within the region. Therefore, when the Regional Transport Authority takes a decision under sub-sec. (1) it has to consider the matters provided in sub-sec. (1) of sec. 47. One of the matters provided there is that it shall take into consideration any representation made by persons already providing passenger transport facilities by any means along or near the proposed route or area, or by any association representing persons interested in the provision of road transport facilities recognised in this behalf by the State Government, or by any local authority or police authority within whose jurisdiction any part of the proposed route or area lies. In the case of Shahpura Bhilwara Bus Association vs. The Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur (1) it was said that unless some kind of notice of the Regional Transport Authority to increase the number of stage carriage permits is given to what are called old existing operators, or to the local authority or to the police authority, it would hardly be possible for any of these to make a representation. Further where the Regional Transport Authority increases the number on any route from say 3 to 4, it is passing a fresh order under sub-sec. (3) of sec. 47 and should take into consideration such representations. In order to do so it is in our opinion necessary that some kind of notice whether general or particular should be given by the Regional Transport Authority to those who have been given a right to make a representation under sub-sec. (1) of sec. 47. In this case the order of the Regional Transport Authority, dated 26th February 1957, is clearly an order under sec. 47 (3 ). There is nothing to show that those who had a right to mike a representation under sec. 47 were given any kind of notice general or particular, before the resolution of 26th February. 1957 was passed. The Regional Transport Authority does not say that it had given any kind of notice before passing the resolution of 26th February, 1957. We are of opinion that it must give some kind of notice, whether general or particular before passing a resolution of this kind under sub sec. (3) of sec. 47 of the Act as it now stands after amendment. Inasmuch as this resolution was passed without giving any notice whatsoever and the provisions of sec. 47 (1) relating to making of representation could not be complied with, it must be set aside. It will of course be open to the Regional Transport Authority to pass such resolution under sec. 47 (3) as it thinks fit in future after giving notice to enable those who have a right to make a representation under s. 4/ (1 ). We, therefore, allow the application, set aside the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur, dated 26th February, 1957 relating to this route and direct that if the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur is still of the opinion that another stage carnage is needed on this route it should proceed as indicated above. In the circumstances of the case, we pass no order as to costs. .;