DEVI SAHAI Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in this case have applied for a writ of certiorari, quashing the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority dated 28th/29th Oct. , 1960 and also for an appropriate direction to the said authority for renewal of their permits.

(2.) THESE 27 petitioners are operators of stage carriages on the Jaipur-Alwar route; having a permit each granted by the Regional Transport Authority. For the sake of convenience they may be split up into two groups. The permits of the first 21 of these petitioners were to expire on 31st October, 1959. They filed applications under sec. 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter called the Act) within the period allowed by the law for renewal of their permits for a further period of three years. THESE applications were published in two instalments on the loth and 24th of September, 1959, but there was no objection received to the renewal which they claimed. Yet their applications were kept pending. On 24th June, 1951 the State Transport Authority appears to have issued some instructions to the Regional Transport Authorities directing them to postpone grant of permits or not to renew permits in view of the impending scheme for nationalization of State transport. Later a circular appears to have been issued by the State Transport Authority also prohibiting the renewal of permits because of the contemplated nationalisation scheme. In view of the circular presumably nothing further was done regarding the applications of renewal of permits filed by these petitioners and on the 1st November, 1959 temporary permits were granted to them, for a period of three months only which were due to expire by 31st January, 1960. In the meantime on the 17th December, 1959 certain rules of nationalisation of road transport by the State were published under chapter 4a of the Act. Again the applications for renewal of the permits remained pending and the Regional Transport Authority on the 1st February, 1960 i. e. after the expiry of the temporary permits, which had been issued to the petitioners, issued some kind of temporary authorisation permitting them to continue to operate on the route in question. ; Eventually on the 26/27th February, 1960 at a meeting of the Regional Transport Authority the applications for renewel were rejected, but to meet the needs of traffic again temporary permits were granted to the petitioners with retrospective effect from 1st February, 1960, valid for a period of another four months upto 31st May, 1960. All this dubious procedure appears to have been adopted by the Regional Transport Authority in view of the impending scheme of nationalisation, the rules whereof had been published by the Government. In the meantime on 10th May, 1960 the Rules framed and published by the State Government under chapter 4a of the Act were held illegal and void by this Court; and on 26th May, 1960 this Court on a petition for writ filed by some of these petitioners set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority dated 26th February, 1960, refusing to renew the permits of the petitioners and directed the said authority to decide the question of renewal according to law.

(3.) THE learned Government Advocate has appealed to us on the ground that the renewal of the permits would entail payment of a heavy amount of compensation to the various operators. That may be so. If the statute, in all fairness, has provided that certain persons should be entitled to the payment of compensation, why should the court or even a quasi judicial tribunal like the Regional Transport Authority adopt questionable methods to defeat such rights Courts of law or even Tribunals exist to guard against any such contingency and not to defeat the legitimate rights of the people. We verily believe that even the Government which is responsible not only for the efficiency of its administration and for the protection of legitimate rights, but also for setting up a high standard of rectitude and fair play in its dealings with the people would not countenance any such procedure.