(1.) The petitioner in the above petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is a person providing transport facilities in the district of Chitradurga. He applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Chitradurga, for grant of a stage carriage permit to operate two stage carriages each day in opposite directions on an inter-State route between Chitradurga in the State of Mysore and Srisaila in the State of Andhra Pradesh and back, via Challakere, Hanagal, Rampura, Bellary, Guntakal, Gutti, Dhone, Kurnool and Atmakur. He also made another application to ply two stage carriage vehicles between Chitradurga and Srisaila on a route which was slightly different from the one referred to above, although the route from Chitradurga to Hagari was common to both the applications. The first of the above two applications was considered by the Regional Transport Authority in subject No. 33 on 18-1-1964 and a permit was granted as prayed for. We are informed that the second application which was dealt with under subject No. 34 was rejected. Against the grant of permit made on the first application, three appeals were filed before the Mysore State Transport Appellate Tribunal (hereinfarter referred to as the M.S.T.A.T.) by three appellants including the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) respondent-4 herein. The M.S.T.A.T. by its order dated 2-11-1964 dismissed all the three appeals. The Corporation thereafter filed an appeal against the order of the M.S.T.A.T. before the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the M.R.A.T.) in Appeal No. 726/66 (MV). The appellants in the other two appeals also filed two appeals before the M.R.A.T. which were however later withdrawn and dismissed.
(2.) Ultimately, the M.R.A.T. dealt with only the appeal of the Corporation on merits and by its order dated 30-7-1970 allowed the appeal partly rendering the permit invalid on a portion of the said route, namely, between Bellary and Chintagunte Border which was part of a notified route in a scheme approved under S.68D of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which completely excluded operation of stage carriage vehicles by any other person or persons on that section. The resulting position was that the petitioner could operate his service only from Chitradurga to Bellary beyond which he could not operate the service on account of the scheme having come into force. It is admitted that the said scheme was published in the Mysore Gazette dated 7-5-1964 and it provided as follows:
(3.) The portion of the route in question, namely, from Bellary to State border, is one of the routes covered by the scheme and the petitioner is not one of those who is excluded from the operation of the scheme in any manner whatsoever even though the permit that was granted by the Regional Transport Authority was in respect of an inter-State route. The said permit had not been counter-signed by the concerned authority in the State of Andhra Pradesh till 23-6-1965 by which date the scheme had come into operation. Since the permit had not been counter-signed by the authority in Andhra Pradesh, the petitioner could not be considered as an existing permit holder of an inter-State route on the date on which the scheme came into operation. This position was rightly not disputed by Sri B. Tilak Hegde, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, in view of the decisions of this Court and of the Supreme Court on similar matters. But Sri Hegde attacked the order of the M.R.A.T. on other grounds. He contended that the impugned order of the M.R.A.T. suffers from certain irregularities. His first submission was that the M.R.A.T. had committed a mistake in thinking that the permit which had been granted to the petitioner was one on a route which was the subject matter of his application and which was disposed of by the Regional Transport Authority in subject No. 34, wherein the permit was not granted to him. He based this submission on the operative portion of the order of the M.R.A.T. In the course of the order the M.R.A.T. observed that the petitioner could not operate between Chitradurga and Chintagunta border even though the route in question does not touch Chintagunte border at all. This submission of Sri Hegde appears to be well-founded.