- (1.)THIS writ application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by jagjit Singh and nine other bus operators on the Jaipur-Sikar amalgamated route challenging the legality of the proceedings taken by the Home Secretary to the government of Rajasthan under the notification dated the 24th January, 1962 issued by the Government of Rajasthan under Section 43 (1) (iii) of the Motor vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in pursuance of which the respondents Nos. 4 to 33 were granted permits to ply their buses on Jaipur- Bikaner route via Sikar, Salasar. Sujangarh, Nokha.
(2.)THE case of the petitioners is that about 31 bus operators, who were plying their buses on the Jaipur-Alwar route, were displaced on account of the nationalisation of the said route. In order to rehabilitate them, the Government of rajasthan, purporting to act under the provisions of Section 43 (1) (iii) of the Act, published in the Rajasthan Gazette a draft notification No. F. 1 (4) 31/h (B-Gr. I)/ 61 dated the 25th October. 1961 for inviting objections or suggestions in respect of the proposal for issuing direction for the grant of the permits to the 32 displaced operators of the Jaipur-Alwar route on the proposed route of Jaipur-Bikaner via sikar which is 235 miles long and overlaps the Jaipur-Sikar route for which the petitioners held their permits. It is alleged that the petitioners submitted their objections to the Government against the proposal contained in the draft notification. A notice dated 4th December, 1961 was, however, published in the rajasthan Gazette. Part IV-C dated the 4th December. 1961, authorising Shri Shiv shanker, Home Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan to hear objections against the proposals contained in the draft notification referred to above in consultation with the State Transport Authority on the 15th December. 1961 in the office of the Judicial Secretary in the Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur, at 11. 00 a. m. The grievance of the petitioners is that this Gazette was not despatched to its subscribers before the 15th December. 1961 when the objections were to be heard in the Home Secretary nor was any notice issued to the petitioners individually. The petitioners further submitted that they had absolutely no knowledge of the notice dated the 4th December 1961 and consequently the could not appeal before shri Shiv Shanker. Home Secretary it the Government of Rajasthan for pressing their objections. On the 16th December 1961 petitioner Harjit Singh somehow came it know that the Home Secretary would hear objections and decide the same on some other date as the meeting of the State Transport Authority could not be held on the 15th December 1961. It is alleged that on the 13th January, 1962, the state Transport Authority met and petitioner Harjit Singh along with some other petitioners (whose names have not been given in the petition) went to attend this meeting and they tried 'o seek an adjournment, but the State Transport Authority refused to accept the petition for adjournment which the petitioner Harjit Singh subsequently submitted to the Secretary, Stale Transport Authority in its office and a telegram (Ex. 13-C) was also despatched the same day to the State transport Authority to postpone the finalisation of the directions under Section 43 of the Act on Jaipur-Bikaner route unless he was heard in the matter the further grievance of the petitioners is 'hat the State Government without giving any opportunity to them of being heard by the Home Secretary in consultation with the state Transport Authority, finalised the instructions to be issued by It to the State transport Authority under Section 43 (1) (iii) of the Act and the notification was published in the Rajasthan Gazette, Extraordinary dated the 24th January, 1962. It is this notification that has been challenged by the petitioners, mainly, on the ground that the instructions were issued ex parte in clear violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioners in spite of their efforts were denied a chance of being heard though their objections were pending before the Home Secretary and the State Transport Authority The second ground of attack, which has been vehemently urged before us, is that the Stale Government was not competent to issue any such specific directions for the issue of permits in favour of certain individuals in clear violation of the provisions contained in Sections 47 and 57 of the Act relating to the grant of permits. It is, therefore, prayed by the petitioners that the notification issued by the State Government on the 24th january, 1962 giving directions to the State Transport Authority under Section 43 (1) (iii) of the Act for issuing permits on Jaipur-Bikaner route to the respondents nos. " 4 to 33 be quashed and the permits granted to the aforementioned respondents in consequence of these instructions on the said route he set aside.
(3.)THE petition has been contested by the State Government and by some of the recipients of the permits on the Jaipur-Bikaner route. Two separate replies to the writ petition have been filed, one by the State Government and the other by the contesting displaced respondents who got the permits on the Jaipur-Bikaner route.