MOHAMMAD ELIAS Vs. ARDHENDU MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case, the relief which the petitioner seeks is that the order of the Stale Government dated the 11th June 1964 passed by the Minister of Transport under Section 64A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, he quashed by issue of a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution. The impugned order, a copy of which is contained in Annexure 'C/1'of the application, was passed in the following circumstances.

(2.) In 1961, there were five stage carriage services mostly belonging to Messrs. Singhbhum Motor Transport Company, operating between Chakulia and Baharagorah, a distance of about 19 miles, and two more services operating between Chakulia and Jamsola on the same route, Jamsola being about 4 miles away from Baharagorah. On the 30th March 1961, one Anirudh Narain Bush requested the Chotanagpur Regional Transport Authority to create an additional vacancy in the same route, whereupon the Regional Transport Authority called for a report from the Superintendent of Police, Singhbhum. The Superintendent of Police reported on the 26th June 1961 that a further service on the route was necessary. The Regional Transport Authority, however, called for a report from the Deputy Commissioner, Singhbhum, and the latter reported on the 16th October 1961 that the existing services were adequate and no further service was needed to be added. The report of the Deputy Commissioner was considered by the Regional Transport Authority at its meeting held on the 22nd December 1961 and it was decided to create a further vacancy in the route. In pursuance of this decision, an advertisement was made inviting applications from intending bus-operators and six applications for permit were received by the Regional Transport Authority. One of the applicants was the existing operator, Messrs. Singhbhum Motor Transport Company, of which Sri Ardhendu Mishra (respondent No. 1) is one of the partners. All the applications were published in the Bihar Gazette on the 27th June 1962 as required under Section 57 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). In the meantime Ardheudu Mishra (respondent No. 1) filed a representation before the Regional Transport Authority opposing the creation of an 'additional vacancy in the route on the ground that the existing services were quite adequate and the creation of an additional service would lead to cut-throat competition and tell adversely upon the efficiency of the existing services. It appears that the State Government also directed the Regional Transport Authority to consider whether the creation of an additional vacancy in the route was desirable. The matter was reconsidered by the Regional Transport Authority at their meeting held on the 13th May 1963, and on that occasion, the Deputy Commissioner, besides a non-official member from Singhbhum, expressed himself in favour of creation of an additional service on the route.

(3.) All the six applications received in response to the advertisement and the representation of Shri Ardhendu Mishra (respondent No. 1) came to be considered by the Regional Transport Authority on the 1st July 1963. On that occasion, the present petitioner, who was one of the applicants, alone appeared for the grant of the permit, and the Regional Transport Authority granted the permit to the petitioner in spite of vehement opposition put forward by respondent No. 1.