KAN SINGH, J. - (1.) THE subject -matter of the present writ petition is a resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur dated 6 -3 -69 granting a non -temporary stage carriage permit to respondent No. 3 Smt. Shakuntla Devi on Bharatpur -Govindgarh route as also the appellate order of the Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 28 -6 -69 granting further extension to Smt. Shakuntla Devi for obtaining the permit. The relevant facts are briefly these: - -
(2.) THE petitioner is an operator on Bharatpur -Deeg -Nagar route which is an 'A' class route, 35 miles in length. The route Bharatpur -Govindgarh over which permit was ordered to be granted to respondent No. 3 overlaps this route in part. It appears from the map placed on record, Annexure P/1, that Bharatpur is the common terminus of the two routes. Between Bharatpur and Nagar which is at a distance of 35 miles, there are two important towns, Kumer and Deeg. This is the route on which the petitioner is plying his bus. From Nagar one comes to Jaluki which is at a distance of 10 miles from Nagar. Jaluki is a focal point where three roads meet. One road goas to Laxmangarh towards the south which is at a distance of 9 miles from Jaluki. The other road goes to Alwar which is at a distance of 23 miles. The third road goes to Govindgarh which is on the opposite direction to Laxmangarh. The distance between Jaluki and Govindgarh is 4 miles. This means that respondent No. 3 applied for the longer route upto Govindgarh which completely overlapped the petitioner's route Bharatpur -Deeg -Nagar. I may read here the impugned resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur: 'Item No. 9/13 Bharatpur -Govindgarh. Resol. No. 31 Smt. Shakuntla Devi - -present by Shri M. K. Khanna, counsel. Objectors. 1. Shri H.C. Mangal, for R.S.R.T.C. Present. 2. Shri Fasihuddin, counsel for Alwar -Kekri amalgamated route operators -Present. Heard the parties. This is a new route and 'A' Class in nature. The opening of this route will connect an important town of Alwar district namely Govindgarh with Bharatpur the district headquarter of Bharatpur District. The opening of the route will also provide facility to the travelling public of the villages falling enroute. Thus on an experimental basis, one S. C. permit for three years with one return service is hereby granted to Smt. Shakuntla Devi. The applicant will put up her vehicle of the prescribed model for the 'A' Class route within 30 days from today otherwise this grant shall stand cancelled automatically. It is also decided that the scope on this route will be fixed after six months as by that time we will be able to know the exact position of the traffic potentiality. Resolved accordingly. Announced.' It appears that Smt. Shakuntla Devi did not have the ready bus and was not in a position to give the registration number thereof within the period of 30 days allowed by the Regional Transport Authority. On 2 -4 -69 Smt. Shakuntla Devi put in an application before the Regional Transport Authority to grant her an extension of time for obtaining the vehicle. The Regional Transport Authority granted this extension for 15 days, but before the expiry of 15 days Smt, Shankuntla Devi lodged aa appeal before the Transport Appellate Tribunal making grievance of the short time allowed to her for putting in the vehicle. The appeal came to be heard and disposed of by the Transport Appellate Tribunal on 28 -6 -69. The Transport Appellate Tribunal accepted the appeal and it set aside that part of the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur dated 6 -3 -69 by which it was laid down that the grantee shall employ the vehicle of the prescribed model within 30 days, failing which the permit would automatically stand cancelled. The Transport Appellate Tribunal directed that the grantee shall be entitled to put in the vehicle within a period of 30 days from the date of its order failing which the grant shall stand automatically cancelled. The petitioner submits that he was surprised to find that Smt. Shakuntla Devi had started plying her vehicle on the strength of the permit issued by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur. He then made am enquiry and came to know that the permit had come to an end on 6 -4 -69. The petitioner further states that the application of Smt. Shakuntla Devi was published by the Regional Transport Authority for inviting objections in Rajasthan Gazette dated 13 -7 -67 and the petitioner had filed objections against that application by registered post and such objections were duly received by the office of the Regional Transport Authority. He further states that on the date of hearing, that is 6 -3 -69, he appeared before the Regional Transport Authority and pressed his objections, but the Regional Transport Authority did not consider the objections of the petitioner and in spite of that granted the permit to Smt. Shakuntla Devi. In challenging the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority dated 6 -3 -69 the petitioner contends that the Regional Transport Authority had acted without jurisdiction as will be clear from the face of the record. It is pointed out that the route Bharatpur to Govindgarh was altogether a new route and before granting any permit on this route it was the duty of the Regional Transport Authority to fix the scope or limit for permits over this route under Section 47 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter to be referred as the 'Act'. It is maintained that unless this is done as a preliminary to the consideration of the applications for grant of permits the Regional Transport Authority will be acting wholly without jurisdiction. It was next contended that inasmuch as the Regional Transport Authority had fixed a period of 30 days for putting in the vehicle and had laid down that in the event of the grantee not putting in the vehicle within the time allowed the grant shall automatically stand cancelled, the Regional Transport Authority could not have further extended the time. As regards the order passed by the Transport Appellate Tribunal in appeal it was contended that the appeal was not competent as the imposition of the condition regarding the putting in of the vehicle within the time allowed and the grant coming to an end in the event of non -compliance of that condition was not covered by any of the clauses of Section 64 of the Act. In this connection it was pointed out that the issuing of the permit in accordance with Rule 86 of the Rajas -than Motor Vehicles Rules, 1951, hereinafter to be referred as the 'Rules', did not result in the imposition of any condition to the permit itself. It was submitted that whatever orders were passed incidental to the grant itself prior to the issuing of the permit were not tantamount to attaching the conditions to the permit itself, as the conditions mentioned in Section 48 of the Act did not contemplate any such condition being attached to the permit.
(3.) THE writ petition has been opposed by Smt. Shakuntla Devi. It is denied by her that the Regional Transport Authority could not have extended the time for furnishing the registration number of the vehicle. In the alternative it is urged that the question of availing of the extension granted by the Regional Transport Authority was academic as, in fact, it was not availed of. It is maintained that the appeal before the Transport Appellate Tribunal was maintainable and the Transport Appellate Tribunal was entitled to extend the period for putting in the vehicle while accepting the appeal. It was denied that the petitioner had filed any objections against the respondent's application for grant of a permit. It was stated that the application of the petitioner was published on 6 -4 -67 and no objections were filed against that application. It was by mistake that the application was published for the second time in July, 1967 and, therefore, according to the respondent, it did not confer any fresh right on any person to file objections as the application of the respondent had been dealt with on the footing of the first publication and against that no objections had been filed. In the circumstances it was submitted that the petitioner having not filed any objections against the application was not entitled to maintain the writ petition. It was urged that it was the duty of the petitioner to have filed the objections before the Regional Transport Authority and to have taken the objection which he is now urging before this Court that without first fixing the limit for permits under Section 47 (3) of the Act the Regional Transport Authority could not grant any permits., The respondent also denied that the petitioner had filed any objection by registered post when the respondent's application was published for the second time on 13 -7 -67, though by mistake. Lastly, it was urged that the petitioner should have availed of the remedies provided by the statute by filing an appeal before the Transport Appellate Tribunal against the grant of the permit itself and the writ petition should not be entertained also on the ground that it was a delayed one.;