MARWARI MOTOR SERVICE Vs. CHOTANAGPUR REGIONAL TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner firm in this writ application has obtained a rule from this Court against the respondents to show cause Why the order dated 14-8-1969, a copy of which is Annexnre 3 to the writ application, made by the Chotanagpur Regional Transport Authority, respondent 1, refusing renewal of the petitioner's stage carriage permit for the route Hazaribag-Hazaribag Road, order dated 24-11-1969 of the Appeal Board of the State Transport Authority, respondent 2, a copy of which is Annexure 4, and the order of the State Government, respondent 4, communicated to the petitioner in their letter dated 7-4-1970 (annexure 5) be not called up and quashed by grant of a writ. THE 3rd respondent is the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation which has objected to the grant of renewal of the petitioner's permit. Cause has been shown on behalf of respondent 3 alone.

(2.) FOR several years past the petitioner had been running a stage carriage from Hazaribagh to Hazaribagh Road and back on grant of permits to it. The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation proposed a scheme under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act hereinafter called the Act. With some modifications it was approved and the approved scheme was published in the Bihar Extraordinary Gazette dated July 29, 1960. A copy of the relevant portion of the scheme is Annexure 1 to the writ application. The petitioner's case is that in absence of a statutory definition of the phrase "direct services" a dispute arose sometime in the year 1962 between the Corporation and some private operators as to the meaning of the said phrase, which led to the filing of representations, under Section 64-A of the Act, as it stood under the Bihar Amendment. The then Minister, Transport, took a decision by his order dated 7-9-63, a copy of which is Annexure 2 to the writ application, that the said phrase meant that only those private operators who were operating their services between the two termini were excluded; the others were not excluded. The petitioner's case further is that accordingly its permit was renewed for the year 1964 for five years, and the renewed permit was valid till 25-3-69. FOR a further renewal of this permit, the petitioner filed an application before respondent 1 under Section 58 of the Act. It came up for consideration in the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority held on 14-8-1969. The said authority by the order (Annexure 3) took the view that since major portion of the route Hazaribagh-Hazaribagh Road was a notified one, the balance of weight was in favour of the Corporation. It was, therefore, resolved that the Corporation be asked to place more buses on the route Hazaribagh-Hazaribagh Road via Bagodar by a certain date up to which the temporary permit issued to the petitioner was to expire failing which another temporary permit was to issue to the petitioner in public interest.

(3.) MR. Saptmi Tha, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that reading the approved scheme with reference to the scheme proposed by the Coloration, it would be clear that private operators who were operating directly on the route Hazaribagh-Bagodar were completely excluded but there was no exclusion of a private operator operating on a longer or a shorter route than Hazaribagh Bagador. MR. Lakshman Sharan Sinha appearing for the Corporation refuted this argument and submitted that since the scheme was approved for the route Hazaribagh-Bagodar to the complete exclusion of the private operators, they could not be allowed to operate on any portion of this route irrespective of the fact whether they were operating on a longer or a shorter route. The question is: which of the rival contentions is correct? It does not seem to be covered by any direct authority.