SHIV CHARAN DAS SHARMA Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Sheo Charan Das Sharma filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari for quashing certain resolutions passed by the first respondent, the Regional Transport Authority, Meerat. He further prayed for a writ in the nature of; mandamus commanding the second respondent, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Meerut, not to issue any temporary permits to opposite party-respondents 3 to 14. Satish Chandra, J., who heard the matter, referred the following question for decision to a large Bench:

(2.) THE petition then came before a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Verma and Rajeshwari Prasad, JJ. They found that the decisions of this Court on the question were conflicting. They pointed out that several Single Judges of this Court had answered this question in the affirmative while it had been answered in the negative in two Division Bench decisions of this Court (Civil Misc. Writ No. 690 of 1965, Mahendra Sen Jain v. State Transport (Appellate) Tribunal, U. P., Lucknow, decided at Lucknow on 5th of November, 1965, and Civil Misc. Writ No. 1870 of 1961, Sri Mohammad Jafar v. Regional Transport Authority, Meerut, decided on 5th of October, 1962. Verma and Rajeshwari Prasad, JJ., referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Nageshwar Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Authority, AIR 1959 SC 308 and Raman and Raman Ltd. v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 694, and expressed a doubt as to the correctness of the aforesaid decisions of the two Division Benches of this Court. In view of the importance of the question they referred the same for decision by a Full Bench. There are three separately classified routes, which are relevant to the present case, within the jurisdiction of the first respondent, viz., (1) Meerut-Kankar-khera-Sardhana-Mulhera-Bayanwal-Kuan- Budhana (hereinafter referred to as route No. (1), (2) Meerut- Kandarkhera- Banoo-Sardhana-Bhuni Parai-Doghat-Tikri (hereinafter referred to as route No. 2) and (3) Meerut-Kankar-khera- Nanoo- Sardhana- Bhooni- Barnawa Binauli (hereinafter referred to as route No. 3).

(3.) THE petitioner on 26-10-1966 made representation to the second respondent objecting to the grant of temporary permits on the three routes and prayed that they be withdrawn. The second respondent passed the following orders on 31-10-1966: "Status quo should be maintained until the matter is finally decided by the R. T. A." Thus, in effect, the objection of the petitioner was rejected by the second respondent and temporary permit-holders were allowed to ply their stage carriages on the three routes as mentioned above.