JASBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The route in question is part of a restricted route. On 5.8.1994, a notification was issued and thereby, private transport operators were permitted to ply buses on restricted routes. A notification was issued inviting applications from private transport operators for obtaining permits to ply passenger-buses on the route in question. One hundred and one persons responded to the said notification. Considering such response, fifteen persons were granted permits, whereas, the applications of the appellants before us were rejected only on the ground that they have permits to ply buses on other routes. Appellants preferred appeals against the decision not to grant them permit on the ground that they had permits to ply buses on other routes. The State Transport Corporation filed a Revision against the self same order, but in respect of that part by which fifteen permits were granted to ply buses on the said route, contending that the said route falls within the restricted route. While the appeals were heard together, the revision was heard separately. By two separate orders both dated 26.9.2005, the appeals filed by the appellants as well as the revision were allowed. The appeals were partly allowed declaring that the decision to reject the applications of the appellants for grant of permits on the ground that they have permits to ply buses on other routes is not sustainable, but no direction was issued to issue any permit in favour of the appellants on the ground that the same is not permissible in view of the decision rendered by the Tribunal in the revision application. In the revision application, it was held that the route in question falls within the restricted route, and accordingly, no permit could be granted to private operators to ply buses on the said route. By the order passed on the revision application, the decision to grant fifteen permits was also interfered with. Fifteen persons, who were entitled to permits, in view of the decision of the Regional Transport Authority as was interfered by the Tribunal in the aforementioned revision, filed a writ petition challenging the said decision of the Tribunal rendered on the said revision application and succeeded therein. By reasons thereof, the order of the Tribunal passed on the revision stood quashed. In such view of the matter, the impediment in the grant of permits in favour of the appellants, being the decision of the Tribunal rendered on the said revision application, stood removed.

(2.) The appellants approached this Court by filing two separate writ petitions seeking a direction for issuance of permits. Those were disposed of by permitting the appellants to approach the Authority concerned for their decision. Subsequent thereto, the Transport Secretary issued permits in favour of the appellants. Those were considered later by the Regional Transport Authority by a circular resolution, and subsequently, the same was approved in a regular meeting of the Regional Transport Authority. On the strength of the said permits, the appellants started plying their buses on the route in question. Seeing that the appellants have launched buses on the route in question, the private respondents in the present appeals approached the Regional Transport Authority for grant of permits to ply buses on the said route. That having been rejected on the ground that there is no further vacancy available, the said respondents filed a writ petition and contended therein that grant of permits in favour of the appellants was improper and /or illegal. While considering the writ petition, a learned Single Judge felt that the grant in favour of the appellants was by the Regional Transport Officer and not by the Regional Transport Authority, and accordingly, by the judgment and order impugned in the appeals interfered with the grants in question.

(3.) Judicial review is available in respect of an action, which is per se illegal, but it is not necessarily available in respect of an action, which is irregular. Judicial review against an irregular action is available only when by reason of such action any interest of the person seeking judicial review has been interfered. The question is, "Can it be said that the action of grant of permits is per se illegal, and accordingly, cannot be looked-at at all for a moment or the same should be treated to be a product of mere irregularity?" If it is a mere irregularity, the question would be, did the same interfere with any interest of the private respondents.