AMIRCHAND NARAYAN Vs. DIVISIONAL OFFICERS BOMBAY DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution to set aside the two orders copies of which have been annexed as Exs. B and C to the petition.

(2.) The petitioner carries on business of plying motor buses on a route known as Malad-Marve route. On the 11th of May 1955 the Regional Transport Authority granted to the petitioner a substantive permit for a period of three years to ply his buses on Malad-Marve route. The permit expired on the 11th May 1958. Prior to its expiry the petitioner applied in March 1958 for the renewal of the said permit. The application has not yet been disposed of. But the petitioner has been allowed to ply his buses on the said route under a temporary permit.

(3.) On the 11th of May 1955 the Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking was also granted a permit to ply its buses in Greater Bombay as it then existed. By act LVIII of 1956 the limits of Greater Bombay were extended adding to its the then area 34 villages which were till then situate in the District of Thana. These 34 villages included Malad and Marve. After the limits of Grater Bombay were thus extended, the B. E. S. T. Undertaking applied on the 9th April 1957 for a permit to ply its buses in the area added to the limits of Greater Bombay by Act LVIII of 1956. In pursuance of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act IV of 1939 the application of the B. E. S. T. was duly published. The petitioner filed his objections. On the 29th of November 1957 the application of the B. E. S. T. dated the 9th of April 1957 came on for hearing before the Regional Transport Authority. Amongst other things, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the B. E. S. T. Undertaking being a State Transport Undertaking within the meaning of S. 68A(b)(iv), the provisions of Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, which came in force in February 1957, were applicable to its said application. It was submitted that in the circumstances the B. E. S. T. Undertaking was not entitled to file any application under Chapter IV by reason of the overriding effect given to the provisions of Chapter IV-A and the B. E. S. T. Undertaking not having made a scheme as provided for in S. 68-C contained in Chapter IV-A, its application was not maintainable. The Regional Transport Authorit upheld this objection and rejected the application of the B. E. S. T. Undertaking.