S. SRIDHAR RAI Vs. THE SECRETARY, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, KOLAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner operates a transport service under the name and style of "Muragan Transport, K.G. F." In the year 1950, he has been given a permit to operate a bus service between Kempapuram and Ramasanmdram bonier via. Mulbagal, Gukunte and Mulbagal and Mallanaikanahalli. The 2nd respondent who is the proprietor of a bus service known as "M.B.S. Express Service" made an application on 12 -8 -1958 to the Regional Transport Authority, Kolar, who is the third respondent, praying for a temporary permit between Mulbagal and Gukunte, Mulbagal and Byapanahalli, and Mulbagal and Mallanaikanahalli; he was granted on 6 -9 -1958, by the third respondent a permit for a period of one month only.

(2.) ENCLOSURE "A" is the certified copy of the second respondent's application dated 12 -8 -1958, for a temporary permit. It is seen from enclosure "A" that the purpose for which the permit was required, had been stated by the second respondent to be "public convenience". Enclosure "B" is the copy of the resolution passed by the third respondent on 6 -9 -1958 in respect of the second respondent's prayer for the temporary permit; that resolution was as follows : "Granted for one month". Enclosure "C" is the copy of the second respondent's application dated 22 -9 -1958. In that application, the second respondent had alleged that the running of a bus under the temporary permit for one month only would involve the expenditure of more than a thousand rupees by way of tax for the quarter and that it would result in a loss to him; he had, therefore, prayed for the grant of a temporary permit for four months. Enclosure "D" is the copy of the resolution passed by the third respondent on 8 -10 -1958 in respect of the second respondent's application of 22 -9 -1958. The resolution is as follows : "Temporary permit granted for three months In continuation of the previous grant."

(3.) BUT . the learned Advocate for the second respondent argued that in view of the fact that provision has been made in the Motor Vehicles Act for appeal and revision, the aggrieved party should exhaust the remedies available under the Act, before seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.