AJIT KUMAR SINGH Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners pray for a writ in the nature of certiorari against a resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, Kanpur granting permits to the respon dents Nos. 2 to 11.

(2.) THE petitioners ply their stage carriages on the Orai -Rampura via Bag -hra -Jalaun route on permits granted by the Regional Transport Authority. Kanpur under the Motor Vehicles Act The strength sanctioned in respect of that route was 12 stage carriages at the re levant time. Dr. Anand, the second rest pondent, had been granted a permit in respect of this route, but subsequently, he surrendered the permit. Upon this, a vacancy arose and by a notification dated July 1, 1967, published in the U. P. Gazette of that date the Regional Transport Authority invited applications for the grant of the permit. The noti fication specifically mentioned that there was only one vacancy on the route. Fifty one applications were filed, and by a notification dated February 16. 1968, published in the U. P. Gazette dated March 2, 1968, the Regional Transport Authority announced the names of the applicants and invited objections to their applications. The meeting of the Regio nal Transport Authority at which the applications and objections were propos ed to be considered was scheduled for August 19, 20 and 21, 1969.

(3.) SHRI L.P. Naithani, for the petitioners, states that what the Regio nal Transport Authority did during the meeting was to take up the applica tions for grant of permits, then raise the sanctioned strength of stage carriages In respect of the route and thereafter grai\t permits to the respondents. He contends that after the applications had been - taken up for consideration it was not open to the Regional Transport Authority to increase the sanctioned strength and then grant permits on the basis of the increased stren gth. It appears to us, upon exa mination of a copy of the relevant pro ceedings of the Regional Transport Authority, that in fact while the Regional Transport Authority, had originally pro posed to take up the applications for the grant of the permit, it subsequently de cided to defer consideration until it de cided upon whether to increase the sanc tioned strength. The latter question was then considered by it and it decided to raise the strengh fixed in respect of the route. Thereafter, it took up the appli cations again and proceeded to consider them - on their merits. Shri Naithani says that even in that case the grant of the permits is without jurisdiction, be cause after raising the sanctioned stren gth the Regional Transport Authority should have followed the procedure set out in .Section 57 (3) of the Act, that is, published the fact of the increased strength, allowed time for filing repre sentations again, fixed a date for consi dering the applications and representa tions, and then disposed them of on the date so fixed.