BERAR REGULAR MOTOR SERVICE UNION Vs. R. T. A. BHOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, which is an existing operator on the Achalpur Bhainsdehi -Betul route, has called in question two separate orders, both dated 30 May 1962, where by the regional Transport Authority, Bhopal (respondent 1), extended the period of three months it had peremptorily fixed for providing a 1961 -Model bus a, a precondition for the grant of two stage carriage permits, one in favour of Messrs Prabhat Transport Company (Private) Ltd.( respondent 2) for the Achalpur -Bhainsdehi -Betul Chicholi route and another in favour of the Balwant Regular Motor Service (respondent 3) for the Paratwada -Bhainsdehi -Bctul -Chicholi route.

(2.) ON 20 January 1961, the Regional Transport Authority, Bhopal, invited by a notification in the State Gazette applications for stage carriage permits for several routes, including the two routes mentioned at the end of the opening paragraph. The petitioner did not apply for permit for and those two routes nor did it make, under section 57 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the Act), any representation against the various competing applications made for those routes, which had been duly published. Even so, the petitioner has now made a grievance that "It was never notified liar did it have any opportunity of objecting to the grant of the permits" for those routes. On 16 March 1962, a permit for the Achalpur -Bhainsdehi -Betul -Chicholi route was, in due course, granted to the respondent 2 on condition that unless it arranged to provide a 1961 -Model bus within two months, the grant would stand automatically cancelled. On the same date, a like permit for the Paratwada -Bhainsdehi -Betul -Chicholi route was similarly granted to the rcsponden -3 on the same condition. The two respondents were intimated by communication dated 11 April 1962 that, in terms of the grants dated 16 March 1962, they had to fulfil the aforesaid condition within two months of the receipt of those communications. Instead of doing so, the respondent 2 challenged, by means of an appeal under section 64 (a) of the Act, that condition which was attached to the grant and also applied for stay. The State Transport Appellate Authority refused to stay the operation of the condition; but extended this period fixed for it, fulfilment up to 15 September 1967. In the meantime, both the respondents had moved the Regional Transport Authority also in that matter, On 20 April 1962, the respondent 2 applied for relaxation of the condition. On 15 May 1962, it applied for extension of the period fixed for its fulfilment, On 28 April 1962, the respondent 3 also applied for relaxation of the condition. All these applications were heard on 30 May 1962, when each of the two respondents further made an oral application for extension of the period fixed for fulfilling the condition. By the two impugned orders dated 30 May 1961, the Regional Transport Authority extended the period up to 31 August 1962.

(3.) WE are of opinion that this petition must be dismissed for the reason that the petitioner was not candid, did not state the facts fairly and stated it in such a way that it was calculated to mislead the Court. This is that it stated in paragraph 2 of the petition: