RAIPUR TRANSPORT CO PRIVATE Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is mainly directed against-

(2.) THE facts which gave rise to this petition may be shortly stated. The Jabalpur-Raipur route is covered by the Scheme No 33 which, having been duly approved and notified under Section 68d of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, will commence to operate from 23 March 1966 Even so, the respondent 3 applied for a temporary stage carriage permit for the route. On 3 January 1966, the Regional Transport authority, Jabalpur, passed on that application, which was not published, the following brief order: "the route is included in nationalisation scheme No. 33 to commence from 23rd March. It is finalised scheme. There is also a need to start this service to facilitate direct connection between Raipur-Jabalpur. A temporary permit till 22nd March 1966 be granted to Madhya Pradesh state Road Transport Corporation accordingly" the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority. Jabalpur, transmitted a copy of this order with provisional timings to the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, and stated in the forwarding note that the inter-regional permit was valid subject to- (i) counter-signature by the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, and (ii) proper adjustment of timings, if objected to by the existing operators. Thereupon, on 5 January 1966, the respondent 3 applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, for grant of counter-signature. On coming to know of that application, the petitioner, who is an existing operator providing transport services on the major portion of the route, objected to the grant of counter-signature on several grounds The regional Transport Authority, Raipur, fixed 25 January 1966 for hearing the objection and intimated to the petitioner accordingly by a notice dated 13 January, 1966. The Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, was however absent from Raipur on 25 january 1966 and the petitioner was not given any opportunity to be heard in support of its objection. On 27 January 1966, that Authority passed the following order:

(3.) THE petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the two Regional Transport authorities on the following grounds: (i) There was in this case no particular temporary need. It is not covered by the rule laid down by the Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh, State road Transport Corporation v. Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, AIR 1966 SC 156. (ii) The Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, counter-signed the permit without following the procedure prescribed by Section 63 (3) of the Act. (iii) Since there was a scheme approved and notified under Section 68-D of the Act which covered this particular route, the respondent 3 was not entitled to apply for, or obtain, any stage carriage permit for the route