GAJENDRA SINGH Vs. TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJASTHAN JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for getting the order of the Transport Appellate Tribunal Rajasthan, Jaipur (Hereinafter referred to as the T. A. T.) dated 4-12-1970 (Ex. P-11) and the resolution of the Regional transport Authority, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the Authority) dated 17-21970 (Ex. P-7) quashed upon the following allegations;

(2.) THAT the petitioners are doing the business of Transport in the name of Messrs. Gajendra Singh Hari Ram --theirs being a partnership firm though unregistered; that the petitioners obtained a non-temporary permit on Bharatpur --Kathumar via kumher, Sinsini and Nagar route valid for three years vide Ex. P-1 that on 2-21968 they applied for renewal of that permit; that their application for renewal of the permit was published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated 25-4-1968, but nobody filed any objection to it; that the said application was considered by circulation and was accepted also with the result that the petitioners' permit was renewed upto 25-4-1971, but Gajendra Singh petitioner who is the working partner of the firm came to know of that on 25-11-1969 and on that very day he submitted to the secretary of the R. T. A. the permit obtained for making renewal endorsement; that he was told that renewal would be endorsed after obtaining tax clearance reports that the Secretary of the R. T. A. served upon the petitioners a notice informing that there was an arrear of Rupees 3828. 12 of road tax against the petitioners; that in spite of the fact that the petitioners were prepared to pay whatever the road tax was the permit was not renewed and the petitioner gajendra Singh on 26-2-1970 was informed by the Secretary of the R. T. A. that the permit held by the petitioners was cancelled on 17-2-1970 by the R. T. A. (vide Ex. P-7) and that in the meanwhile the R. T. A. had fixed the scope of two permits with one return trip on petitioners' route on 25-11-1968 vide Ex. P-6.

(3.) IT was further alleged that the petitioners did not receive any notice from the R. T. A. under Section 60 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the act), nor had they any notice of the meeting in respect of bearing of any complaint against them; as such they appealed against the said resolution of the R. T. A. (Ex. P-7) before the T. A. T. , that the T. A. T. registered the appeal end on 8-51970 suspended the operation of Ex. P-7 as well vide Ex. P-8, but before that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were granted permits on this route and respondent No. 4 had availed of the permit as well, but the permit of respondent No. 3 Ex. P-9 stood cancelled because of peremptory condition imposed in it and the failure of the respondent of availing of the permit within the time prescribed.