AMAR NATH PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.2.1999 (Annexure 4), and the consequential order dated 28.9.2000 (Annexure 5), whereby respondent No. 4 (Sunil Kumar Sharma, being the new permit-holder) has been allotted the same timing as the petitioner (the existing permit-holder) for the route Madhubani to Vir Kuer Singh Bus Parav (Patna) via Sakri, Darbhanga, Laheriasarai, Kalyanpur, Kisahanpur Railway Station, Muktapur, Samastipur, Musarigharari, Hajipur (Express), arid the return journey.

(2.) THE petitioner is the holder of permit to ply passenger bus for the route Kako to Vir Kuer Singh Bus Parva (Patna) via the aforesaid stations, vide permit dated 27.8.1990 (Annexure 1), issued by respondent No. 2 (Regional Transport Authority, Darbhanga), and the return journey. THE petitioner's approved time-table states that the departure time for the petitioner from Kako is 4.50 a.m., and the arrival and departure time at Madhubani for Patna is 5.10 a.m. and 5.15 a.m. respectively. His departure time for the return journey from Patna to Kako is 1.25 p.m. It appears that respondent No. 4 applied for and was granted similar permit for the same route (less Kako to Madhubani covering 8 kilometres), and the provisional time-table submitted by him proposed that his departure time from Madhubani should be 5.10 a.m. and the departure time from Patna should be 1.30 p.m. THE proposed time-table was circulated and objections were invited, as is manifest from Annexure 2. THE petitioner submitted his objection dated 3.2.1999 (Annexure 3), wherein he objected to the departure time of respondent No. 4 from Madhubani because of being prior to that of the petitioner, which may result in closure of the petitioner's trips. THE petitioner's objection was considered by respondent No. 2 who passed the impugned order dated 19.2.1999 (Annexure 4), whereby he modified the proposed time-table of respondent No. 4, who has been granted 5.15 am. as the departure time from Madhubani in place of 5.10 a.m. and 1.25 p.m. for the return journey from Patna instead of the proposed 1.30 p.m. It is obvious the petitioner's time-table has remained unaltered by the approved time-table of respondent No. 4. It appears that this order was not implemented for quite some time, and the consequential order in implementation of the same has been issued on 28.9.2000 (Annexure 5), notifying the permanent permit and time-table of respondent No. 4.

(3.) LAW is thus clear that the right to carry on the occupation of transport operators under the Act is free trade and is in conformity with Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. It is only the State which can impose reasonable restriction within the ambit of Article 19(6) of the Constitution and can be found within the four corners of the Statute and the Rules thereunder. No individual can have threat of any kind whatsoever from any authority or individual to the enjoyment of his right to carry on the occupation of transport operators. The existing operator has for one more reason no right to object to a new operator joining the filed is that the right of the existing operator is unaffected by the entry of the new operator. In other words, liberal policy to grant permit in favour of the new operator does not deny or deprive the existing operator of a legal right. He does not sustain any injury to any legally protected interest and the objection of the existing operator to the entry of a new operator is wholly unlawful, being an attempt to prevent the entry of a new-comer which is a guaranteed fundamental right. It will bear repetition that an existing operator has no right of objection to the application of a new operator for permit.