MBASHA AND Vs. CSULTAN BEIG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is directed against the order passed by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore, dated 28-12-1957. By the said order the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, granted renewal of permit of Bus MYF 483 belonging to the 1st respondent for a period of 3 months with effect from 1-1-1958.

(2.) On 12-12-1957 the 1st respondent applied for renewal of permit of his bus MYF 483 with effect from 1-1-1958; his old permit expiring on 31-12-1957. To the said application of the 1st Respondent joint objections were filed by the petitioners on 23-12-1957 and 24-12-1957. On 19-11-1957 the petitioners themselves made an application for a permit for their bus plying on the same route, i.e., Chintamani to Bangalore via Nandigudi, Hoskote, Whitefield. H.A.L. and back. On 28-12-1957 the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority granted the 1st Respondent's application for renewal of his permit. He, however, did not cause the said application or the substance there to be published inviting representations, as required by Sub-section (3) of Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before he granted the application of the 1st respondent for renewal of his bus permit. The present application has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the said order of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore, and directing the Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore to dispose of the application of the petitioners and Respondent 1 in accordance with law.

(3.) In support of this application the learned Advocate for the petitioners raised various contentions before us. In view, however, of the fact that we have decided that in the circumstances of this case no useful purpose would be served by issuing the writ asked for and we have already intimated our decision to the parties, it is really unnecessary for us, for disposing of the present application, to deal with the said contentions of the petitioner. However, as the points canvassed before us by the learned Advocate for the petitioners in support of this application were argued at great length, 1 shall shortly deal with the same and indicate my views thereon. Before dealing, with the said contentions, it would be necessary to dispose of one preliminary objection which has been raised by Mr. S.K. Venkataranga Iyengar, Advocate for the 1st respondent, to the maintainability of tin's application.