G T VENKATASWAMI REDDY Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a stage carriage operator. In this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, initially he prayed for a writ of Prohibition or other suitable Writ or Order in the nature of a writ, prohibiting the Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore (first respondent) from implementing its decision announced on 16-4-1964, granting a stage carriage permit to the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation (second respondent) on the route from Bangalore to Tirupathi. Objection was taken to the relief prayed for on the ground that appropriate relief to be asked for is one for quashing the decisions of the first respondent by the issue of a writ of Certiorari. In view of this objection, the petitioner, by means of I.A.No.6, sought and obtained permission to amend his petition by including an alternative prayer namely,

(2.) The material facts of this case are as follows: On 18-3-1963, the petitioner applied to the first respondent for the grant of a permit to operate a stage carriage service between Bangalore and Tirupathi via Krishnarajapuram Hoskote, Kolar, Palamaner and Chittoor (in opposite direction of the Andhra operator Sri Ramachandra Naidu). Tow other stage carriage operators had also applied for permits for stage carriage service on that route. The petitioner's application was notified under S. 57(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act (to be hereinafter referred to as the "Act") in the Mysore Gazette dated 25-4-1963. In said notification, 10-6-1963 was fixed as the last date for receipt of representations and 5-7-1963 was fixed as the date of hearing. In the same Gazette, yet another Notification was published calling for applications in Form No. 21 for the grant of a stage carriage permit on the inter-State route Bangalore-Tirupathi (single trip per day) via the same places as had been mentioned in the petitioner's application. The petitioner filed W.P. No. 730/63 asking this Court to quash the said notification. Therein he prayed for and obtained an interim Order staying further proceedings pursuant to that Notification. Meanwhile, the petition's application, referred to earlier, amendment up for consideration before the first respondent and the R.T.A. was pleased to grant him the permit prayed for. One of the persons who had applied for the permit in pursuance of the notification issued this Court in W.P. 2409/63 for quashing the permit granted to the petitioner. When that petition came up for hearing before this Court, by agreement of all the parties before the Court, the permit granted to the petitioner was cancelled and the R.TA. was directed to consider all the applications received by it up till 20-5-1963 either submitted suo motu or submitted in response to the notification dated 24-5-1963. It appears that there were as many as 46 applicants for the route in question, the second respondent being one of them. The applications in question came up for consideration before the R.T.A. at its meeting held on 16-4-1964. At that meeting 20 applicants withdrew their applications. After hearing the remaining applicants, the first respondent orally announced that the second respondent had been selected for the grant of the permit in question. It is that decision that is being challenged in this writ petition. This petition was filed on 27-4-1964. It is seen from the records that the written proceedings of the R.T.A.'s meeting held on 16-4-1964 was signed and issued by its chairman on 30-4-1964. On 30-4-1964, this Court granted the interim Order of stay prayed. According to the affidavit filed by the Chairman of the R.T.A. the said interim Order was received by the R.T.A. on the evening of 30-4-1964 by which time the Order signed by him had been communicated to the second respondent.

(3.) The petition assails the impugned decision of the first respondent on three different grounds viz.,