RAMA SHANKER MISRA Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Messrs. Rama Shanker Misra and Brothers of Kanpur for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash Resolution No. 11(e) dated 1-11-1956 of the Regional Transport Authority, Kanpur, respondent No. 1, cancelling permanent permit No. 374 for Mahoha Rajnagar route which had been granted to the petitioner and had once been renewed. A request was also made for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to command the respondents, namely, the above Regional Transport Authority and the State Transport Authority, Lucknow, respondent No, 2, not to interfere with the petitioner's right of running his stage carriage permit on Mahoba-Rajnagar route under the above permit in accordance with the law.

(2.) During the pendency of the present writ petition, Ahmad Husain, respondent No, 3, applied for being added as a co-respondent, The application was opposed by the petitioner, but was allowed. Ahmad Husain is thus respondent No. 3, and he is the person on whose complaint the permanent permit of the petitioner was cancelled.

(3.) The record has become somewhat bulky on account of the parties raising unnecessary issues, for example Ahmad Husain has given a long history of his claims for being granted a permanent permit for the above route on the ground that it was on account of his efforts that the Provincial Transport Authority, Vindhya Pradesh, Rewa, consented to countersign the permit to be issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Kanpur, for running stage carriage on the above route which lay partly within the limits of the State of Vindhya Pradesh. These are all matters of past history, and even if the assertions are correct, they would not justify cancellation of the permit of the petitioner and the grant of a permanent permit to Ahmad Husain, respondent No, 3. The parties do not admit certain other facts, for example, the nature of the agreement arrived at between the petitioner and Ahmad Husain, respondent No. 3, and the correctness or otherwise of the complaints made by Ahmad Husain, Most of these points are not material for the decision of the present proceeding, and I shall confine myself to only the material facts, most of which are not in dispute.