LAKSHMI CHAND Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY AGRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from an order of Mr. Justice Tandon dated 8-8-1.958. The appellant is the holder of a stage carnage permit under which he is entitled to ply a stage carriage on the Mathura-Etah route. That route is about 72 miles long and in 1947 the number of stage carriages which were permitted to ply on it was four. In 1947 a decision was taken by the Regional Transport Authority to allow nine stage carriages on this route, but it appears that in fact permits were granted only to seven. Then by a resolution dated 6-12-1954 the Regional Transport Authority, Agra, decided to increase the number of stage carriages permitted to ply on this route to eleven. Nothing however was done to implement this resolution until 29-12-1956, when the Regional Transport Authority invited applications for four new stage carriage permits, the granting of which would bring the total number of stage carriages to eleven. This invitation was published in the U. P. Gazette on 5-1-1957.

(2.) The appellant then filed a petition in this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution in which the principal relief sought was the issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondents, who were the Regional Transport Authority, Agra, and the State Transport Authority, Lucknow, not to consider the grant of additional permits on the Mathura-Etah route or to take any further proceedings on the basis of the notice published in the Gazette on 5-1-1957. This petition was dismised by the order dated 8-8-1958, and the appellant now appeals.

(3.) The appellant's contention is that the Regional Transport Authority had no power to sanction any increase in the number of stage carriages permitted to ply on the Mathura-Etah route without first calling for and thereafter considering such representations as might be made to it by persons who were already providing passenger transport facilities on or near that route. It is common ground that no such opportunity was given to the appellant on whose behalf it is argued that in such circumstances the Regional Transport Authority was not entitled in law to grant any additional permits. That is the only point which is raised in this appeal.