PAHALRAJ NARAINDAS Vs. JOTUMAL SALAMATRAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution by an objector to the grant of a permit on a particular route to the non -applicant; this objection was rejected both by the Regional Transport Authority and in appeal by the State Transport Authority as well. The prayer is that this Court may in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction correct the appellate judgment dismissing the Applicant's objection; and under Article 226, direct the Regional Transport Authority to cancel the permit given to the non -applicant No. 1. The grounds are:

(2.) THE facts of the case are the following. Both the applicant and the non -applicant No. 1 are operators of stage carriages. At the relevant period the applicant was running a service from Satna to a place called Birsinghpur via Kothi. The distance from Satna to Kothi is about 14 miles and Birsinghpur is some distance beyond. The non -applicant No. 1 was running a service from Maihar to Satna. In March 1956, he made an application that he might be given a permit on an extended route, and the stage carriage which was plying from Maihar to Satna may be permitted to ply beyond Satna to a place called Jhali, via Kothi, Jhali itself being about 8 or 10 miles beyond Kothi in a direction different from Birsinghpur. The permit when granted has the effect that both the operators were plying buses, between Satna and Kothi on the same route, but at different hours; and then branched off, the applicant towards Birsinghpur as before, and the non -applicant to Ohali as part of his new route. Of course, the non -applicant would have come from Maihar to Satna and would be going from Satna to Maihar, but that was a route with which the applicant had no concern. The application was published in the manner provided in Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and objections were invited. The applicant did not apply for a permit on this new route from Satna to Jhali but seems to have offered to take the bus already plying on detour from Kothi to Jhali and back, and then to Birsinghpur as before. The usual report was taken from the District authorities on various matters including the sufficiency of traffic and possibly the condition of the road and the like. Ultimately, the applicant's objection notwithstanding, the permit was granted and the non -applicant was allowed to ply two stage carriages on this route Satna -Jhali via Kothi. As far as that new route was concerned this was a fresh permit, but it could also be called an extended permit in the sense that the stage carriages having come from Maihar to Satna were now permitted to proceed beyond Satna on this route.

(3.) FROM the report of the Deputy Commissioner and the D.S.P. it appears there is a scope on this route for two daily services. Formerly temporary permits used to be granted to the operators on this route. In view of the amendment to Section 62 of the Act, the practice has been discontinued. Grant of a temporary permit shows that there is scope on this route. It is clear that apart from any temporary permit, whether in the past or in connection with this application itself, the authority was finding that there was scope, on the report of the Deputy Commissioner and the Superintendent of Police. Even if only the report of these officers is taken into account there was justification for the grant in view of the scope. Again, the temporary permit spoken of in this connection is not the permit granted illegally after this application but the permit granted "formerly" when it was legal. Thus the fact that a temporary permit had been illegally granted for some time to this non -applicant has not really affected the decision even in the matter of the finding about the ''scope". This disposes of the first two grounds.