ONKARMAL MISTRI Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY DARJEELING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C. R. No. 3588 of 1953.

(2.) The facts in this case are shortly as follows: On or about 28-6-1953, the Regional Transport Authority, Darjeeling, Respondent 1, published a notice in the Himalayan Times published at Kalimpong, inviting applications for the grant of 17 permanent routepermits for public carriers, on the Siliguri-Kalimpong Route. The notice contained invitations for applications regarding several other routes but we are not concerned with that in this application. As many as 766 applications were received in respect of the 17 permits. One of the applications was by the petitioner Onkarmal Mistri. It appears from the petition that he has been carrying on transport business for a long time and had been transporting goods between Siliguri and Kalimpong from the period when bullock carts were used in conjunction with, the rail-cum ropeway system which was then used. Thereafter he had been running public carriers in the Siliguri-Kalimpong Route and had four vehicles, which, it is stated, are almost new and in perfect working order. For the purpose of plying these vehicles, the petitioner was being granted temporary permits from time to time. The petitioner has been acting as a contractor to the Department of Civil Supplies, (now known as Food and Supplies Directorate) for transport of food stuff between Siliguri and Kalimpong. It is not disputed time the petitioner has several permits in routes other than the Siliguri-Kalimpong Route. The applications for the 17 permanent public carrier permits between Siliguri and Kalimpong, were considered by the Regional Transport Authority, Darjeeling, on 9-9-1953. The relevant part of the minutes of proceedings of that date reads as follows:

(3.) Mr. Kar appearing on behalf of the petitioner has taken the following points: (1) That there has been a contravention of Section 55, Motor Vehicles Act, (Act 4 of 1939), inasmuch as respondent 1 took into consideration matters which are outside the scope of Section 55. (2) That there has been a violation of the provisions of Section 57(7) of the said Act, inasmuch as respondent 1 did not give the applicant reasons in writing for refusal. (3) That if the letter dated 5-12-1953 be considered to be a purported compliance with Section 57(7) of the said Act, then the reasons given therein are so vague that the same cannot be considered" as having complied with the law.