MOHANLAL Vs. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALONG with this petition, Miscellaneous Petition No. 482 of 1966 is disposed of, as common questions are raised.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that a stage carriage permit on Burhanpur Dedtalai route was held by M/S Tirathdas and Brothers. Tirathdas applied for renewal of the permit, though out of time. The petitioner Mohanlal filed an application on 8.2.1955 for grant of a fresh permit on the said route in lieu of the permit held by Tirathdas. The third respondent, Thakur Navalsingh (the petitioner in Misc. Petition No. 482 of 1966) also filed an application on 25 -4 -1965 for grant of a permit in the vacancy caused because of the failure of Tirathdas to apply in time. The application of the petitioner was published on 2.4.1965, while the application of the third respondent was published on 3 -12 -1965, after about eight months of the filing thereof. The Regional Transport Authority, Indore, took the application of Tirathdas alone for consideration on 14 -10 -1965, though the application of the petitioner, which was filed in lieu of the permit of Tirathdas, was ripe. The application of Tirathdas was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by time. After this, on 18 -12 -1965, the Regional Transport Authority considered the application of the petitioner and granted the permit to him on the ground that he was the only applicant. The Regional Transport Authority failed to take note that for that very route the third respondent had already filed an application which was also published on 3 -12 -1965 and was ripe for consideration, and that no notice was given to the third respondent when the application of the petitioner was considered. In these circumstances, the third respondent filed a revision petition before the State Transport Authority, Gwalior, Challenging the order of the Regional Transport Authority granting the permit to the petitioner.

(3.) THE contention of the petitioner is that the State Transport Authority acted without Jurisdiction in setting aside the grant in favour of the petitioner, while the contention of the third respondent is that the State Transport Authority was in error directing the Regional Transport Authority to invite fresh applications. On this matter, the petitioner also joins with the third respondent.