JAGAN NATH SINGH Vs. R T A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a special appeal by one Jagannath Singh against a judgment of a learned single Judge quashing his permit on a writ petition filed by Chandra Lal Jain, respondent No.3 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and are satisfied that the view taken by this Court consistently in the past is correct and does not require reconsideration.

(2.) A non -temporary stage carriage permit was granted to Jagannath by the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur on the Udaipur -Fatehnagar via Debari -Dabok -Daroli -Vallabhnagar -Randhera -Intali Tana Akola route under resolution No. 12 (item No 11) of 16 -9 -68. A condition was laid down in the permit that he shall produce a vehicle of the requisite model within a period of 60 days from the date of the resolution failing which the permit shall stand automatically cancelled. He did not employ any vehicle during the above period and on 15 -11 -68 his permit stood cancelled as a result of the condition imposed under resolution No. 12. On the application of Jagannath Singh the Regional Transport Authority extended the time for employing a vehicle under its order dated 18 -12 -68 The writ petition was filed by Chandra Lal Jain, an existing operator on the route, who was interested in the matter, challenging the validity of the order of the Regional Transport Authority dated 18 -12 -68 on the ground that once the permit stood cancelled on 15 -11 -68 it had no jurisdiction to extend the time for employing a vehicle. The learned single Judge upheld the contention on the authority of the previous decisions of this Court. Our attention was drawn to the decision in Sheo Onker and another v. The Regional Transport Authority Bikaner and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ No. 480 of 1966 decided on 6 -12 -1966 in which detailed reasons are given for holding that once the permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority stands revoked on account of a peremptory order passed by it at the time of granting the permit that authority has no jurisdiction to set aside that order and extend the time further. We are of the opinion that the reasons given in that decision are sound. The same view was taken recently by us in Smt. Shakuntala's case 1970 WLN 45.

(3.) UNDER the above rule the person to whom a permit is granted is required to employ a vehicle on the route within one month from the date of sanction or such longer period as the authority may specify. It has been held that the time once granted under Rule 86(a); can be extended by the Regional Transport Authority from time to time so long as the permit is not revoked, under Rule 86(b). If a vehicle is not employed within the time granted by the Regional Transport Authority under Rule 86(a) it can revoke the permit under Rule 86(b). There is no reason why it should not be open to the Regional Transport Authority to pass a peremptory order that if the vehicle is not employed within the time so granted the permit shall stand revoked. Such peremptory orders are passed in civil proceedings to which the Code of Civil procedure applies. There is no express provision in the Code for passing such an order. But there is no prohibition either. It has never been held that such peremptory orders are illegal. In Mahant Ram Das v. Ganga Das AIR 1961 SC 382 on which reliance was placed on behalf of the appellant it was not held that such an order is illegal. What the Court observed was - - How undesirable it is to fix time peremptorily for a future happening which leaves the Court powerless to deal with events that might arise in between, it is not necessary to decide in this appeal.