GIRDHARI Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions have been referred by a learned Single Judge because he was of the opinion that the decision of another learned Single Judge in Harischander v. Regional Transport Authority requires reconsideration.

(2.) THE relevant facts are these. The petitioner is one out of 17 existing operators on the Bikaner Duagargagh -Sardarshahar route. Formerly there was no road between Dungargarh and Ratangarh. A new road was later on constructed and applications were filed by different persons for grant of permits over Bikaner -Dungargarh -Ratangarh route and over Bikaner -Dungargarh -Ratangarh -Churu route. These applications were published in the Gazette from time to time, and a meeting of the Regional Transport Authority was convened on 25 -6 -1969 to consider them. Neither the petitioner nor any other person filed any objection against the grant of permits on these routes to the applicants in accordance with the provisions of Section 57(3). On the date of hearing the petitioner appeared before the Regional Transport Authority and filed an application that it could not grant any permit on the Bikaner -Churu route as it had not fixed the limit of permits as required under Section 47(3). The R.T.A. thereupon proceeded to fix the scope of both the routes The scope of Bikaner -Churu route was fixed at 5 permits providing 2 return services daily. The scope of Bikaner -Ratangarh route was fixed at 5 permits providing 6 return trips daily. Thereafter at the same meeting the R.T.A. considered the rival claims of the applicants for permits on these two routes. On the Bikaner -Churu route it granted 5 permits to respondents No. 2 to 6 of writ petition No. 1134/69. On the Bikaner -Ratangarh route the scope of which was fixed at 5 permits it granted 3 permits to respondents No 2 to 4 of writ petition No. 1135/69 as these 3 persons alone had applied for grant of permits on this route.

(3.) IT . was contended before the learned Single Judge on behalf of the petitioner that as the R.T.A. had not fixed the limit under Section 47(3) by means of an independent order of an anterior date the grant of permits on the routes was without jurisdiction and could be callenged by filing a writ petition. The learned Single Judge was inclined to accept this argument. Chandmal J. had taken a different view in Harish Chander Singh v. Regional Transport Authority and therefore he made this reference.