SSRIDHAR RAI Vs. SECRETARY REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KOLAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner operates a transport service under the name and style of "Muragan Transport, K.G. F." In the year 1950, he has been given a permit to operate a bus service between Kempapuram and Ramasanmdram bonier via. Mulbagal, Gukunte and Mulbagal and Mallanaikanahalli. The 2nd respondent who is the proprietor of a bus service known as "M.B.S. Express Service" made an application on 12-8-1958 to the Regional Transport Authority, Kolar, who is the third respondent, praying for a temporary permit between Mulbagal and Gukunte, Mulbagal and Byapanahalli, and Mulbagal and Mallanaikanahalli; he was granted on 6-9-1958, by the third respondent a permit for a period of one month only. Instead of availing himself of the permit so granted, the 2nd respondent made another application on 22-9-1958 to the third respondent praying that he should ho granted a temporary permit for a period of four months at a stretch as the prior grant made for one month only would prove uneconomical. Thereupon, the 3rd respondent granted as per the resolution passed on 8-10-1958, a temporary permit for three months in continuation of the previous grant. The temporary permits granted to the 2nd respondent covered a considerable portion of the route over which the petitioner operates, though the exact extent of that portion appears to he in dispute between the parties. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition alleging that in granting these two temporary permits without being properly satisfied as to whether tho conditions laid down in Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1930 had been satisfied, the 3rd respondent had acted without jurisdiction. The petitioner prays that the orders of the 3rd respondent granting the said temporary permits, be quashed by the issue of a writ of ccrtiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order. The second respondent has filed a counter-affidavit and has opposed the petition.

(2.) Enclosure "A" is the certified copy of the second respondent's application dated 12-8-1958, for a temporary permit. It is seen from enclosure "A" that the purpose for which the permit was required, had been stated by the second respondent to be "public convenience". Enclosure "B" is the copy of the resolution passed by the third respondent on 6-9-1958 in respect of the second respondent's prayer for the temporary permit; that resolution was as follows : "Granted for one month". Enclosure "C" is the copy of the second respondent's application dated 22-9-1958. In that application, the second respondent had alleged that the running of a bus under the temporary permit for one month only would involve the expenditure of more than a thousand rupees by way of tax for the quarter and that it would result in a loss to him; he had, therefore, prayed for the grant of a temporary permit for four months. Enclosure "D" is the copy of the resolution passed by the third respondent on 8-10-1958 in respect of the second respondent's application of 22-9-1958. The resolution is as follows : "Temporary permit granted for three months In continuation of the previous grant."

(3.) In support of his contention that by its failure to satisfy itself as to whether the conditions set out in Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act, had been satisfied before granting these temporary permits, the third respondent had acted without jurisdiction the learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Sharanappa Basappa v. Secretary, R. T. A., W. P. No. 330/1958. (That Division Bench consisted of myself and my learned brother Narayana Pai J.). In that case, the Court had stated as follows :