SHYAM SUNDER DHANNASINGH Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY GWALIOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only important question raised in this petition is whether in the circumstances of the case, the Regional Transport Authority was bound to hear the petitioner before passing an order determining the number of stage carriages for which permit may be granted on Guna-Padon route, under section 47 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(2.) THE petitioner was already having a permit to run a stage carriage on Padon to Panwari via Kapasi, Fatehgarh and Guna route. Padon to guna is 80 Kms. A good part of this route is covered by the permit for padon to Panwari route. On 20-9-1975, the Regional Transport Authority, gwalior passed an order holding that there was a scope for return trips oa guna-Padon route. The petitioner filed a revision against this order before state Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior The revision was allowed and the order of the Regional Transport Authority was quashed for the reason that the order of Regional Transport Authority did not describe the exact run of the route. For reaching Guna from Padon, there are two routes : one is a direct route via Fatehgarh, Bhora, Bana, Jhagar, Supakheri and the other which is longer is via Fatehgarh, Rampur and Khyawaon. The Regional transport Authority had not specified as to which of the two routes was referred in his order. The matter was, therefore, remanded and the Regional transport Authority Gwalior now specified the route and determined the number of stage carriages that should run on the route. The Regional transport Authority found scope for two return daily trips on this route with which we are concerned and may be described as Guna-Padon via kusmoda, Gordha, Sufakheri, Jhagar, Bana, Bhora, Fatehgarh, Rangpur, kapasi and Dhimarpura. The Regional Transport Authority thereafter invited applications for the said route under section 57 (c) of the Motor vehicles Act.

(3.) THE petitioner seeks to challenge this order on the ground that the regional Transport Authority ought to have heard him before determining the scope on the said route as he was the existing operator on the route, a good part of which over-lapped the route for which a permit had been granted to him. The order adversely affected him.