MALIK RAM Vs. R T A JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petitions No. 83, 122, 123, 125, 126, 128, 134 and 143 of 1960 were argued and heard together. The facts and circumstances out of which the writ applications excepting 83 of 60 arise are more or less similar though not identical, and they all raise common questions of law. WRIT No. 83 of 1960 is based upon different facts and grounds but it was represented that the decision of other writ applications will have a substantial bearing upon the decision of this writ case and therefore it was also heard along with these writ applications.

(2.) IT will be sufficient to state the facts generally for the purpose of determining the common questions of law raised during the course of hearing. The various writ petitions are carrying on transport business and are bus operators on routes Jaipur-Bharatpur, Jaipur-Kot-putly, Jaipur-Alwar and Jaipur-Kishangarh Alwar Delhi. They had been granted non-temporary permits for plying their buses on the various routes and these permits were to expire on or about the 31st October, 1959. Before the expiry of the terms of the permits, the petitioners put in applications for renewal in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed time. The applications for renewal were duly published in the Government Gazette (it is unnecessary to mention the dates of publication ). IT may be mentioned that there were also applications by other persons for grant of non-temporary permits. They were also duly published. The applications for renewal as well as fresh applications for non-temporary permits could not be disposed of till October 31st, 1959. The various persons including the petitioner who had applied for renewal of the permits were however granted temporary permits under Sec. 62 (d) of the Motor Vehicles Act pending the consideration of their applications for renewal. These temporary permits were valid upto the 31st January, 1960. Decisions on the applications for renewal as well as for fresh permits could not be taken even up to this date and in the interests of the traffic, the Regional Transport Authority issued certificates to the various persons whose renewal applications were pending for consideration certifying that their applications for renewal were under consideration. These certificates were presumably intended and were actually relied upon for the purpose of plying buses as a temporary measure till the decision of the applications for renewal by the R. T. A. All these applications came up for hearing before the Regional Transport Authority on the 26th and 27th February, 1960. The Regional Transport Authority rejected all applications for renewal as well as for fresh permits. The grounds on which the applications were rejected may be stated in the words of the Regional Transport Authority as follows: - "this authority has information that Rajasthan Roadways Buses are intended to operate on this route in the near future. An application for renewal is tantamount to a fresh application for a permit, according to sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act. This authority can take notice of the likelihood of running of State Roadways "on this route under Sec. 47c of the Motor Vehicles Act. The running of State Roadways buses will be beneficial to the travelling public. . . . . . Resolved that on account of the reasons mentioned above, the undermentioned applications for renewal as well as for fresh permits be and are hereby rejected. " Simultaneously, the Regional Transport Authority thought it proper to make some arrangements for the traffic, and, therefore, decided to grant temporary permits to the applicants for renewal. These temporary permits were granted for a period of four months subject to the conditions that the permits will be ineffective since the date the Rajasthan State Roadways buses began to operate on this route. This is the form of the orders passed in connection with the various routes.

(3.) IT was next argued that the words "in the near future" should also be considered in this connection. IT was pointed out that rules have to be framed after pre-publication and the scheme can be prepared only after the rules are brought into effect after proper pre-publication. Thereafter objections have to be invited to the scheme and considered. IT was pointed out by Mr. Rastogi appearing for the bus-operators of Alwar Delhi route that the scheme prepared for such routes requiring a further approach of the Central Government will require an additional period. This all is bound to take a good deal of time and in these circumstances it cannot be assumed that the nationalised services are likely to operate in the near future. The question involved in the argument cannot in my opinion be answered in the abstract and many elements have to be considered in arriving at a judicial verdict on the point. The stage of the scheme, the nature and the traffic requirements of the route, the availability of other transport services have all to be taken into consideration, and, therefore, apart from a consideration of all these elements, it cannot be accepted that the pendency of a scheme for nationalisation cannot be considered under Sec. 47 (1) (c) on account of the use of the words "near future" in that section. For the purpose of general argument, I need not say anything more though in dealing with the particular arguments based upon the facts and circumstances of particular cases the implication of the expression may justify varying conclusions.