GULAB CHAND GUPTA Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three petitions were heard together. The petitioners in these petitions have been affected by the implementation of the nationalization scheme No. 24. Their permits have either been curtailed or cancelled and, therefore, they have come to this Court seeking a writ of certiorari for the purpose of quashing the orders of the Regional Transport Authority affecting them, To begin with Gulabchand Gupta, he seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Rewa (his Annexure 'd') dated the 14th July, 1970, whereby his permit has been curtailed, and that of the Regional Transport Authority dated the 19th October, 1972 (His Annexure 'g'), whereby the renewal of permit for the whole route has been refused, The Regional Transport Authority has instead renewed the permit for the curtailed route.

(2.) THE petitioner, Gulab Chand Gupta, held a stage carriage permit on Mou-ganj Sonouri route via Deotabab-Garh-Sohagi-Teonthar-Sohagi-Chak as indicated in his Annexure 'c'. The permit was granted in 1969 and was valid upto 31-7-3972. The grant was, however, made after the publication of the proposed scheme No. 24. The proposed scheme is petitioner's Annexure 'a' and it was published in 1964. The scheme was finalized six years after and was published on 6-3-1970, Under the final approved scheme (Petitioner's Annexure 'b'), as read and construed by the Regional Transport Authority, the routes -- Rewa-Mouganj-Hanu-mana and Rewa-Mangaon-Chak were reserved for exclusive operation by the Madhya Pra-desh State Road Transport Corporation. The Regional Transport Authority, for the purpose of giving effect to the approved scheme, acting under Sub-section (2) of Section 68-F of the Motor Vehicles Act, ordered curtailment of the petitioner's permit insofar as it overlapped the nationalized routes. The petitioner has a grievance to make about these orders.

(3.) THE first contention of the petitioner is that his permit could not be cur-failed without notice to him and without affording him an opportunity to make representation. Since in the final scheme, his permit has not been shown for the purposes of curtailment or cancellation, he would be a left-out operator to whom the State Transport undertaking did not desire to exclude. He was after all an existing operator and if his exclusion was desired, he should have been shown in the approved scheme.