BSATYANARAYANA SINGH Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In respect of the route between Mylar and Kotur in the District of Bellary, the State Transport Authority directed the Regional Transport Authority to invite applications for the grant of a permit. This was done in the year 1955 and thereafter three applicants, the petitioner in this writ petition, one Mohamed Ibrahim and another Sethuramachar, made applications for the grant of a permit. The Regional Transport Authority, Bellary, decided to grant the permit to Sethuramachar. Mohamed Ibrahim and the petitioner appealed from that decision to the State Transport Authority and the State Transport Authority set aside the decision of the Regional Transport Authority and granted the permit to Mohamed Ibrahim. The petitioner and Sethuramachar both appealed to the Board of Revenue. Those two appeals were allowed and the Board of Revenue which took the view that none of the three applications presented was in accordance with law, accordingly set aside the order of the Stats Transport Authority granting the permit to Mohamed Ibrahim.

(2.) Sethuramachar and Mohamed Ibrahim then presented writ petitions in W. P. 5 and W. P. 28 of 1958 to this Court complaining against the order made by the Board of Revenue, but those writ petitions were dismissed. The resultant position, therefore, was that applications for the grant of a permit had to be made once again by those who wished to operate on the route.

(3.) On June 4, 1959, the Regional Transport Authority published a notification calling for applications fixing June 13, 1959 as the last date on which the application had to be presented. The petitioner presented his application on June 10, 1959 for the grant of the permit, but the Regional Transport Authority appears to have thought that the time fixed for the presentation of the application was too short and therefore published another notification on June 13, 1959 fixing July 11, 1959 as the last date on which the applications had to be presented. In the second notification it was stated by the Regional Transport Authority that the earlier notification stood cancelled. After the second notification was published by the Regional Transport Authority, Sethuramachar and several others presented applications for the grant of the permit. Sethuramachar has intervened in this writ petition and is represented by Mr. Malimath, his learned advocate.