SHYAM SINGH Vs. R T A UDAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Shyam Singh has moved for an appropriate writ against the Regional Transport authority, Udaipur, restraining the said Authority from considering applications for grant of a permit on the Udaipur - Bhilwara route without duly publishing the petitioner's application dated 6th October, 1958, and also for directing the said respondent to publish the application aforesaid in due course as required by sec. 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act No. IV of 1939 - hereinafter called the Act ).

(2.) THE facts may be briefly stated. THE Regional Transport Authority invited applications for five stage carriage permits on the aforesaid rule by a notification published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated 7th of November, 1957. THE petitioner along with others also put in an application for a permit on that route on the 21st of November, 1957. Out of the applications received it appears that the Regional Transport Authority published 113 applications, including that of the petitioner, in the Rajpatra dated 27th March, 1958 and thereafter by separate resolutions dated 15/16th May, 1958, permits were granted to some applicants and the application of the petitioner as also of others were dismissed. One Beharilal, Chairman of the Taxi Motor Association, Kankroli, had objected that one of his applications in his own name and two applications in the name of the Taxi Motor Association had not been published; and therefore, the Transport Authority could not validly consider any of the other applications for permits; but this contention was over-ruled. Against that order Behari Lal and the Motor Association, Kankroli, moved for a writ in this court, being writ petition No. 85 of 1958. THE petition was accepted and an appropriate writ was issued. THE direction was that the Transport Authority was bound to publish all the applications before taking into consideration any of them for grant of permit and the resolutions passed by the Regional Transport Authority granting permits, or rejecting applications were, therefore, quashed. THE result was that in the matter of publication of the applications received the Transport Authority had to observe the above mandate and directions of this court.