ZAMINDAR MOTOR TRANSPORT PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts leading to the present Letters Patent Appeal are that Zamindar Motor Transport Co., Private Ltd. are engaged in running stage carriage permits on three routes, being (1) Delhi- Bawana-Narela, (2) Delhi- Bawana-Anchandi and (3) Delhi Bawana-Kharkhoda. The appellant company held three permits for route No (1) two for route No. (2) and one for route No. (3) The appellant-company was performing on the above routes, twenty return trips per day. Besides the appellant-company, there were thre other operators, those routes were common with the appellant-company from Delhi to Bawana and they were performing about thirty return trips. Since May 9, 1956, the Delhi Transport Undertaking, respondent No. 2 had been holding stage carriage permits valid for certain areas other than the areas in dispute. On October 19, 1959, the Delhi Transport Undertaking applied to the State Transport Authority requesting for validation of their permits for the entire Union Territory of Delhi. On January 6, 1960, the substance of their application was published in a vernacular paper "Daily Tej." It may be pointed out that in the said notice there is no specific mention of any request by the Delhi Transport Undertaking to operate their buses in the rural areas. The notices gave 20 days' time for objections and representitions under section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was stated that the date and time of the meeting for the consideration of the representation will be notified later. On January 12, 1960. The Delhi Provincial Motor Transport Union Congress of which the appellant company was a member preferred their objections and requested that the Delhi Transport Undertaking should not be allowed any extension in the area of operation. On February 10, 1960, resolution No. 40 was passed by the State Transport Authority which deserves reproduction-

(2.) The Learned Single Judge inter-alia held that compliance with sub-section (3) (4) and (5) of section 57 of the said Act was not necessary for removal of conditions laid down in the resolution dated February 10, 1960, regarding running of buses on the routes occupied by other operators. In the opinion of the learned Single Judge the condition mentioned in the resolution that the Delhi Transport Undertaking would operate new services parallel to the existing services of private operators only after getting the approval of respondent No 1, was merely in the nature of administrative instruction. The learned Single Judge, also held that the letter dated October, 19, 1959, was validly treated as a formal application for grant of a new permit under section 57(8) of the said Act. Shri. Tandon the learned counsel for the appellants has raised the following contentions ;-

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents admits that sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) were not complied with because the application for permission to operate on the occupied routes was rightly not treated as an application for the grant of a new permit. The learned counsel submits that (a) only an application to very condition set out in section 48 of the Act is required to be treated as an application for grant of a new permit within the meaning of section 57 (8) (b) the learned Single Judge was right in holding that the formalities required under subsection (3) (4) and (5) of section 57 had been complied with before passing the resolution of 10th of February 1960, when the permit already granted to Delhi Transport Undertaking had been validated for the entire Union Tarritory of Delhi and (e) the said condition imposed by the resolution was merely an adminstrative instruction given by State Transport Authority to the Delhi Transport Undertaking and not a condition. The learned counsel for the respondents also coneands that the petitioner-appellants were not aggrieved by non-compliance of sub-section (3) (4 and (5) of section 57 as their permits were neither affected nor cancelled and therefore the writ petition could not be entertained at their instance. In our view the condition imposed in the resolution dated the 10th of February, 1960. was a condition within the meaning of section 57(8) and an application for removal of said condition was in view of the provisions of section 57(8) required to be considered as an application for the grant of a new permit. In our opinion the variation envisaged by section 58(8) is not confined to the conditions set out in section 48. In the resolution dated the 10th of February, 1950 the Delhi Transport Undertaking was not entitled to operate new services parallel to the existing services of the private operators without the approval of the State Transport Authority. In substance the application for permission to operate new services was an application to vary the conditions of any permit by the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area within the meaning of section 57(8) of the Act. Though this point is enough to dispose of the petition and allow the appeal but we might also in view of the importance of the point raised deal with the question regarding the validity of the application by reason of its non-compliance with section 46 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner draws our attention to rule 4.7 of Delhi Motors Vehicles Rules which provides that every application for a permit in respect of a transport vehicle shall be in one of the Prescribed forms, the form for stage carriage permit being, P.St. S.A. it requires various particulars to be set out including. (a) the route, routes or area, for which permit is desired, (b) the maximum number of vehicles which will ply at any one time under the terms of the permit; (e) the minimum number of vehicles which will ply at any one time under the terms of the permit in the area or on any route or any part of any route, and the minimum number of daily vehicle-trips ; (d) -particulars of the vehicles to be used on the service ; (e) particulars of the time table proposed to be appended (f) the standard rate of fare which is proposed to be charged etc. etc.