POONAMCHAND GHASIRAM RATHOD Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITYINDORE REGION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is a short one. It is whether in proceeding, for the transfer of a permit taken under Section 59 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 75 of the Madhya Bharat Motor Vehicles Rules, 1949, a person objecting to the transfer can claim the grant of the permit proposed to be transferred to himself.

(2.) In February, 1955, the Dhar Transport Company of Dhar addressed a letter to the Regional Transport Authority, Indore, for the transfer of a permit held by it on Dhar-Indore route to the respondent No. 3 Gendalal. On receipt of this letter the Regional Transport Authority published a notice in the Madhya Bharat Gazette dated 19th May, 1955, about the transfer of five permits held by the Dhar Transport Company including the one in question to the persons mentioned in the notice. The notice invited representations in connection with the intended transfer of permits. The Regional Transport Authority invited representations purporting to act under Section 57. In response to this notice the petitioner filed an objection opposing the transfer and also made an application for the grant of a permit to him on the Dhar- Indore route. The Regional Transport Authority did not entertain the petitioner's claim for the grant of a permit to him and made an order for the transfer of the permit of the Dhar Transport Company in respect of the Dhar-Indore route to Gendalal, The petitioner then preferred an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Authority which was dismissed. He now prays for the issue of a writ of ccrtiorari for quashing the decisions of the Regional Transport Authority and the Appellate Authority,

(3.) Shri Sen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that under Rule 75 (d) of the Madhya Bharat Motor Vehicles Rules, 1949, the Regional Transport Authority was given the power to deal with an application for the transfer of a permit as if it were an application for a permit; that in the present case on receipt of the intimation of the Dhar Transport Company that the permit held by it for the Dhar Indore route should be transferred to Gendalal, the intimation was treated as an application for transfer; that the application was also treated by the Regional Transport Authority as an application for a permit as was evident from the fact that in the notice which was published in the Madhya. Bharat Gazette dated 19th May, 1955, about the transfer of certain permits, representations with reference to Sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) of Section 57 wore invited by the Regional Transport Authority; and that having treated the application for transfer as an application for a permit, the Regional Transport Authority was hound to publish the petitioner's application under Section 57 for the grant of a permit to himself and to entertain and decide his claim to that respect. It was said that the view taken by the Regional Transport Authority and the State Transport Appellate Authority that in the proceedings for a transfer of the permit the petitioner could not ask for a grant of the permit to himself was erroneous. Learned counsel relied on Ram Gopal v. Anant Prasad, AIR .1959 SC 851 to support the contention that when the application for transfer of the permit was dealt with as an application for grant of a permit, it should have been heard and decided along with new applications for the permit.