SYED LIAQUET HUSSAIN Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution prayina that the record of the proceedings of the meeting of the respondent the Regional Transport Transport Authority, Lucknow Region, Lucknow dated the 7th of August, 1965 be summoned and be quashed by issuing a writ of certiorari, that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondent not to give effect to their decision dated the 7th of August, 1965 and not to issue any permits in pursuance of their decision and not to permit the plying of additional buses in pursuance of the said decision. There is a prayer for costs also and also for any other suitable writ, order or direction which the Court may deem fit to issue.

(2.) IN the Lucknow Region there is a route known as Hardoi-Shahjahanpur route which covers a distance of 41 miles. In the year 1952 the strength of the buses plying on this route was fixed at 2. The strength was gradually raised till on the 31st of July, 1961 it was fixed at 27th. On the 17th of August, and the 70th of September, 1964 two more operators were allowed to operate on this route. The total strength thus became 29 on this route. There is another route in the region known as Lucknow-Shahjahanpur route which overlaps the entire Hardoi-Shahjahan-pur route. The strength of the buses plying on this route was 12 in the year 1964. There is yet another route known as Lucknow-Shahabad route. It also overlaps the Hardoi-Shahjahanpur route to an extent of 22 miles and the strength of the buses plying on this route is 7. There is a route known as Hardoi-Parelia route via Shahabad which also overlaps this route from Hardoi to Shahabad. The strength of the buses plying on this route is 5. One Suresh Kumar Jaiswal was plying on the Hardoi-Shahjahanpur route. He failed to move an application for the renewal of his permit in time and when it was moved beyond time, it was rejected. A vacancy thus arose and applications were invited for that vacancy. Another operator failed to apply for renewal and a vacancy occurred as to his permit also and applications were invited for that vacancy as well. The question of the grant of two permanent permits for which applications had been invited came up for consideration before the respondent at its meeting on the 7th of August, 1965. The petitioner claims that he too being a permit-holder on the said route and interested in the matter attended the meeting. The question of increasing the strength of the route by 5 more buses was not on the agenda. The respondent, however, expressed a desire that instead of filling the aforesaid two vacancies it would grant 7 permits. Objections were immediately filed by the petitioner and seven other operators against the increase in the strength. The basis of the objections was the undesirability of the increase in the strength inasmuch as the transport facilities on the route were already adequate, that several buses had to remain idle each day, that the buses were not plying full load and only 50% of the seating capacity was being utilised and the return to the operators was inadequate considering the capital investment made by them and that the increase in the strength was in no way called for and conferred no advantage to the public of the service provided to them or any benefit to the particular locality. They prayed for an opportunity being given to them to satisfy the respondent about these matters! The petitioner's case is that without affording any opportunity to the operators the respondent took a decision that instead of filling two vacancies seven permits would be granted by it. As the petitioner apprehended that the respondent would issue seven permits and the grantees of the permits would start plying their buses on the route which would result in great financial loss to the petitioner and other operators and would cause considerable hardship to them, he filed this writ petition.

(3.) IN order to appreciate as to what are the "matters mentioned in Sub-section (1)" of Section 47, we may quote the said sub-section as follows: