ANWAR AHMAD KHAN Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It arises out of a contest for permit for the route of Tambor to Sitapur via Hargaon and Laharpur. It appears that respondent No. 3 Shaym Sunder Lal was holding one Regular Stage Carriage Permit No. 324/ST valid for three years from the 4th April 1957, to the 3rd April, 1960, for the said route. On the 2nd April 1960, he applied for renewal of the said permit for a further period of three years. This application for renewal was obviously time-barred, as under Section 58 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act (Act No. IV of 1939), hereinafter called the Act an application for renewal of such a permit could be made sixty days before the main permit is due to expire. Under Section 58(3) the Regional Transport Authority could, however, condone delay up to a period of 15 days only. Even making a margin for a period of 15 days' which could be condoned by the Regional Transport Authority tne application of the respondent No. 3 for renewal dated tne 2nd April, 1960, was obviously time-barred as his permit was due to expire on the very next day i.e. the 3rd April, 1960. Seeing that the application for renewal made by respondent No. 3 was time-barred under Section 58(3) ot the Act, the petitioner applied for a fresh permit on the same route on the 24th May 1960 in case renewal of permit No. 324/ST was refused. Another person named Shyam Behari Lal also applied like the petitioner for a fresh permit. The application of respondent No. 3 for renewal as well as of the petitioner and Shyam Behari Lal for a fresh permit were sent by respondent No. 1., the Regional Transport Authority, Lucknow Region, Lucknow, on the 30th May 1960, for publication under Section 57(3) of the Act in the U. P. Gazette. All the three applications were published in the Gazette; dated 11th June, 1960. They were fixed for final disposal before the respondent No. 1 in their meeting to be held on the 15th and 16th July, 1960. On the 15th July, 1960, when these applications came up for consideration before respondent No. 1, the petitioner appeared and pressed for the rejection of the application ot respondent No. 3 on the ground that it was barred by time under Section 58(3) of the Act. The Regional Transport Authority rejected the application of respondent No, 3 on the ground that it was obviously time-barred. Thereafter they decided to reduce the strength from 5 to 4 with the result that there was no vacancy left for an additional permit on the route. The remaining two applications for a fresh permit, namely that of the petitioner as well as of the other applicant, namely Shyam Behari Lal, were rejected on the ground that there was no vacancy on the route.

(2.) Shyam Behari Lal did not file an appeal against the said order. The petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 Shyam Sunder Laf, however, did file an appeal before respondent No. 2, namely the State Transport Authority, Tribunal, U. P., Lucknow. The appeal of the petitioner was numbered as appeal No. 262 of 1960 while that of respondent No. 3 was numbered as 310 of 1960. Both these appeals were fixed for disposal on the 16th March, 1961. On that date two more appeals were on the agenda, one being appeal no. 255 of 1960 by respondent No. 3 and the other being appeal No. 294 of 1960 filed by Messrs. D. M. Agarwal. Both these appeals related to the same vacancy. Appeal No. 310 of 1960, by respondent No. 3 for renewal of his permit was dismissed by the State Transport Authority, Tribunal, as time-barred on the objection of the petitioner. Appeal No. 294 of 1960 filed by Messrs. 0. M. Agarwal was also dismissed. In respect of appeal No. 255 of 1960, it was stated on behalf of the petitioner that the alleged application for fresh permit by respondent No. 3 out of which this appeal purported to arise not having been published under Section 57(3) of the Act, the appeal was not maintainable, and was, therefore, liable to be dismissed summarily. The secretary of the State Transport Authority, U. P. who is stated to be always present in the meeting, however, stated that the application had been duly published, and was in order, and appeal No. 255 of 1960 was, therefore, maintainable. The petitioner believed this assurance given by the Secretary, and, presuming it to be correct, conceded that in view of the above position Shri Shyam Sunder Lal should be given preference. Thereafter the petitioner's Counsel wanted the question of publication of the application for fresh permit alleged to have been given by the respondent No. 3 to be verified from the Gazette, but the Secretary of the State Transport Authority again held forth the assurance that he had looked into the matter and the application of the respondent No. 3 was in order. In view of the said assurance given by the Secretary of the State Transport Authority and the Statement made by him, the State Transport Authority Tribunal, U. P., Lucknow proceeded to dispose of the appeal. They reversed the order of respondent No. 1, the Regional Transport Authority, Lucknow, reducing the strength on the route. They increased the strength on the route by one, allowed the appeal of respondent No. 3 and directed that a Stage Carriage permit be issued on the said route in his favour. Appeal No. 255 of 1960 filed by respondent No. 3 having been allowed appeal No. 262 of 1960 filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

(3.) After this order was passed, the petitioner looked up the Gazette with a view to further ascertain whether the application alleged to be given by Shyam Sundar Lal respondent No. 3, for a fresh permit was actually published in the Gazette or not. As a result of his further search and scrutiny he found that no such application was ever published in any Gazette. He, therefore, filed the present writ petition praying that the order of the Regional Transport Authority rejecting his application and that of the State Transport Authority dated the 16th March, 1961, rejecting appeal No. 262 of 1960 filed by him and allowing appeal no. 255 of 1960 filed by respondent no. 3 be quashed.