DALU SINGH Vs. STAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner Dalusingh has prayed that a writ of certiorari may be issued to set aside the order dated 23rd August, 1980, passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal Jaipur, (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal).

(2.) NOKHA -Kolayat route is a 'C' class route lying within the Bikaner region. In the year 1968, a scope of three permits with two return services daily was fixed for the said route. After taking into consideration the report of the Evaluation Committee of the Planning Department the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner (hereinafter referred to as the RTA), by its resolution dated 15th March, 1980, decided to increase the scope on the said route to six permits with four return services daily. As a result of the aforesaid increase in the scope three vacancies occurred and a temporary permit was issued by the RTA in favour of the petitioner on 8th May, 1980. The RTA also issued a notice inviting applications for grant of three non -temporary permits on the said route and in response to the said notice the petitioner has submitted an application for grant of a non -temporary permit. The said application of the petitioner has been published in the Gazette dated 31st July, 1980. In the meanwhile one Shri Bhagwanaram, respondent No. 3 herein, who is an existing operator on the said route, filed a revision petition under Section 64 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Tribunal against the resolution of the RTA dated 15th March, 1980. In the said revision petition, the petitioner was also impleaded as a non -petitioner. The Tribunal by its order dated 23rd August, 1980, allowed the said revision petition on the view that there were no sufficient grounds for doubling the scope on the Nokha -Kolayat route and the increase in the scope could not be said to be justified. The Tribunal therefore cancelled the increase in the scope on the said route. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) THE writ petition has been opposed by Respondent No. 3 who has filed a reply wherein it is asserted that the petitioner is employed as a conductor with one Shri Baluram Suthar, well known bus operator, who has his garage and office on Gangasahar Road, Bikaner and that the temporary permit that was issued in favour of the petitioner had actually been obtained by the said Shri Baluram Suthar. Respondent No. 3 in his reply aforesaid, has further asserted that for the past four months the petitioner has been working on the vehicles operating on the Lunkaransar Kumhana route and that Shri Modaram belongs to the same village as Shri Baluram Suthar and stays at Lunkaransar and that the notice which was sent by registered post in the name of the petitioner by the Tribunal was sent at the address of garage of Shri Baluram at Gangasahar Road, Bikaner from where it was redirected to Lunkaransar at the address of Shri Modaram and that, in accordance with the instructions given by the petitioner, the said registered letter containing the notice was delivered to Shri Modaram. The submission of respondent No. 3 is that notice was duly received by the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 has further submitted that the temporary permit issued in favour of the petitioner has expired and that the petitioner has now no interest in the subject matter and has, therefore, no locus standi to Seek the quashing of the order passed by the tribunal.