GENERAL MANAGER U P GOVT ROADWAYS BAREILLY REGION Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER this judgment, I propose to dispose of Writ Petitions Nos. 110, 111 and 112 of 1969 which all raise similar questions of fact and law.

(2.) THE petitioners in each of these writ petitions are the General Manager, U. P. Government Roadways, Bareilly Region and the Transport Commissioner, U. P. Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 2 in each of the writ petitions are the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and the Regional Trans port Authority, Bareilly Region. Opposite Party No. 3 in Writ Petition No. 110 is Daulat Ram, in Writ Petition No. Ill is Ramesh Chand Gupta who is successor-in-interest of one Ram Sanehi Lal and in Writ Petition No. 112 is Smt. Bimla Devi and Manzoor Ahmad who succeeded to the inte rest of one Abdul Wahid. It appears that originally Ram Sanehi Lal and Abdul Wahid were operators of stage carriages on Bareilly-Shishgarh route and each of them held a permit for a stage carriage. Daulat Ram was an operator on Moradabad-Kanth route and also held a stage carriage permit. The route Bareilly-Shishgarh was notified under Chapter IV- A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) on 15-7-1961, while the other route Morada bad-Kanth was notified on March 25, 1963. After these notifications the permits of these permit-holders were cancelled under Section 68-F of the Act. In lieu of com pensation for the cancellation of these per mits, these displaced operators were how ever given permits on a route known as Budaun-Sahawan-Babrala route under the provisions of Section 68-G. It may be stat ed at this place that according to the peti tioners a portion of this route from Budaun to Sahawan was also a notified route. The permits on this route which were originally granted by the Regional Transport Autho rity Bareilly to these three persons, namely, Daulat Ram, Ram Sanehi Lal and Abdul Wahid, in April, 1963, did not, however, contain any restriction so as to prohibit them from picking up or setting down the passen gers between Badaun and Sahawan. Later on, when the Transport Commis sioner detected this irregularity he wrote a letter through his Assistant Transport Conv missioner to the Regional Transport Officer Bareilly as Secretary of the Regional Trans port Authority pointing out this irregularity committed in granting these permits and directing him that at the time of next rene wal these permits should be renewed only for the non- notified portion of the route but the permit-holders may be allowed to ply one up and one down trip daily with corridor restrictions and that such permission should be given in four monthly periods. A copy of this letter is Annexure 3 to each of these writ petitions.

(3.) THE Appellate Tribunal under the impugned order dated 9-9-1968 (An nexure 6) while maintaining the order of that Regional Transport Authority that the per mits issued to the appellants in respect of the Badaun-Babrala route shall be subject to corridor restrictions on the notified por tion of the route i.e., from Badaun to Sahs-wan, modified that order in so far as the permit-holders were required to obtain fur ther special permission of the Transport Commissioner to ply their buses on this notified route after every four months. It is against this order that these writ peti tions have been filed. The writ petitions were contested on behalf of the permit-hol ders i.e., opposite party No. 3. I heard that learned counsel for the parties.