ABDUL GAFOOR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE four writ petitions can be convenient-by disposed of together because of identical questions which arise for consideration in them. The petitioners in writ applications No. 285 and 336 of 1961 are operators of stage carriages under permits granted to them on the Jaipur-Sikar route, whereas the petitioners in writ petitions Nos. 286 and 346 of 1961 are operators of stage carriages on the bikaner-Salasar route. The Jaipur-Sikar route covers a distance of 73 miles and the Bikaner-Salasar route covers a distance of 130 miles and it is not disputed that both these routes are over-lapped by the Juipur-B kaner route which covers a distance of 235 miles. The complaint of these petitioners is that the non-petitioners had been plying their buses on the Al. war-Jaipur route, which route has since been nationalised by a scheme for nationalisation of road-ways prepared for the purpose; as a result of nationalisation the non-petitioners have been in the alternative inducted on the jaipur-Bikaner route by the Regional Transport Authority in lieu of payment of compensation to them, without giving any opportunity to these petitioners, who had their proprietary interest, on the routes aforesaid, to be heard in the matter. As such, it is contended, the Regional Transport Authority has acted in violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the rules framed thereunder and also ignored the principles of natural justice.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that in August 1960 the Jaipur-Bikaner route was profosed to be opened by the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur, and applications were invited for the grant of permits on this route. A good number of persons including trie petitioners applied for permits on the said rouce in response to the aforesaid notification, but the Regional Transport. Authority neither published the applications in question nor took any steps to decide about the fate of those applications. Eventually the Jaipui-Alwar route was natonalised and a scheme for nationalisation was finalised in respect of that route. The Regional Transport Authority by its resolution dated 31st December, 1960, Cancelled the perjnits of the operators on the Jaipur-Alwar route, who are res-ponaen-s there (31 in number), though the term at their permits had not expired. Those operators were unsuccessful in having the orders of the Regional Transport Authority set aside. Later, it appears that the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur, on 27th May, 1961 made an endorsement on tue canceled permits of these respondents, operating on the erstwhile Jaipur-Alwar route, to the following effect;

(3.) WHEN the matter came to be finally heard, the respondent-operators placed reliance upon a. subsequent restution of the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur, passed on 19th June, 1961. The respond nts contended on the basis of this resolution that whatever illegality may have been attached to the endorsement made earlier by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, that was cured by this formal resolution of the Regional Transport Authority itself and by virtue of the resolution it was open to the respondents to operate on the Jaipur-B kaner route. The petitioners, therefore, filed the other writ petitions later challenging the resolution dated 19th June, 1961. All these actions of the Regional Transport authority. Jaipur, are assailed by the petitioners as being illegal and in violation of the principles, of natural justice. The petitioners submit that in order to authorise these respondent-operators to ply their buses on the Jaipur-Bikaner route, in lieu of compensation payable to them for cancellation of their permits before the expiry of their period, it was necessary that this should have formed part of the nationalisation scheme itself. In that case the petitioners, who were affected by the induction of these respondents on a route which overlapped the routes of these petitioners, would have been entitled to raise their objections and to be heard in the matter before the scheme could be finally passed. If after a hearing, the authorities were of opinion that the respondent-operators could be provided on the Jaipur-Bikaner route, the position would have been different. But it was not open to the Regional Transport authority, Jaipur and much less to the Secretary of that Authority to make any endorsement on the cancelled permits of the respondent-operators, thereby giving them a right to ply on the Jaipur-Bikaner route, without hearing these petitioners, nor was it possible for the Regional Transport Authority to ratify the action of the secretary by a subsequent resolution. It is further contended that even assuming that the matter was not provided for in the scheme itself, the petitioners should have been, in any case, given notice of the intention of the Authority to provide for the respondent-operators on the jaipur-Bikaner rpute, because it was in the nature of fresh permits being given to certain operators to ply on that route, to he detriment of these petitioners; under the law this could not be done unless and until the matter had been notified, applications entertained and objections invited from these petitioners who were likely to be affected by the grant of such permits. It is also contended that a large part of the route lay beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur, and, therefore, the competent authority to deal with the matter under the law was the Regional transport Authority, Bikaner, who could have regularly granted these permits to the respondent-operators and got the permits counter-signed by the Regional transport Authority, Jaipur, in order to validate them. Reliance is placed in this connection on Section 63 read with the proviso to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles act.