T P BORAIAH Vs. MYSORE REVENUE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions can be disposed of by a, common order. The petitioner was a stage carriage operator on the route Mangala to Mysore, a distance of 69 miles, prior to the promulgamation of what is known as Kanakapura scheme nationalising certain routes embraced by that scheme. Consequent upon the promulgation of the scheme his permit was curtailed on the portion of the route Kollegal to Mysore with effect from 1-12-1966. The result was that he was left with only a portion of the route lying between Mangala & Kollegal a distance of 10 miles only. Presumably because it was uneconomical. he did not operate on that portion of the route for nearly 2 years. Indeed when that permit was due to expire, he applied for renewal after giving an undertaking that he would operate on that portion of the route although the distance was uneconomically short. Inspite of such renewal he failed to operate. When the position stood thus, on 17-1-68 he applied for grant of variation of the route in such a way as to circumvent the nationalised portion. That application stood rejected on 4-5-1968. The petitioner appealed and it is stated that the appeal was pending, at the time when the permit was due to expire on 9-10-1970. He however applied for renewal of that permit well in time on 18-2-1970. The said application was rejeced by the RTA concerned on 17-11-1970. The petitioner appealed to the STAT and MEAT unsuccessfuly and the said appeals were dismissed on 6-1-1971 and 8-10-1971 respectively. In these petitions, the petitioner has challenged the said orders of the Tribunals.

(2.) WP.2843 of 1971 is referable to the order rejecting the application for renewal and WP.3080 of 1971 relates to the order refusing to grant the variation prayed for. The Tribunal after examining the question relating to the renewal of the permit and after concluding against the petitioner, rejected his request for variation of the route on that basis . It is however contended on behalf of the respondent that such rejection of the request of variation had also been based on the ground that there was no need, by the RTA concerned.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioner, it is urged thus: - That the ground relating to non-running of service in accordance with the permit granted, would not be available to the authorities while considering the question of renewal of a permit. It at all such a ground is sought to be relied on, the authorities could do so in accordance with the provisons of S.60 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The argument is that if the proceedings had been instituted under Sec.60 of the Act, the petitioner would have had an opportunity to show cause as to why his permit should not be cancelled or'suspended in accordance with the terms thereof. On a careful consideration of the matter I am unable to accept this contention.