MADANLAL Vs. REGION TRANSPORT AUTHORITY JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE are two writ petitions, which raise common questions, so they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THESE facts of both the cases lie in a narrow compass. In Jodhpur region there is route known as Jodhpur - Bhopalgarh - Ashop- Mundwa amalgamated route consisting of seven routes It is said that there was a scope of 14 stage carriages to perform 7 return services. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as "the Secretary") recommended to in crease the scope from 14:7 to 28 stage carriages to perform 14 return services. Considering that increase of scope is under contemplation, the petitioner Madanlal in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1511 of 1981 moved an application for the grant of one non-temporary stage carriage permit on 17. 11. 1980. According to him his application was kept pending and was not sent for publication as required under Sec. 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), probably for the reason that the scope was awaited The matter relating to the increase of the scope was listed in the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as "the R. TA. ") held on 26. 5. 1981, but the matter was continued to be adjourned upto 18. 9. 1981. He, however came to know that by a circulation note dated 30. 7. 1981 the R. T. A. increased the scope from 14:7 to 16:10 by its order dated 10. 8. 1981 and one temporary permit has been granted to non-petitioner No 2 Shri Ramgopal Rajpurohit by its order dated 12,8 1981. The petitioner Madanlal then made mention of the facts as to when and how the application of non-petitioner No. 2 was dealt with. It was averred by him that the Secretary on the office note dated 9. 1. 1981 passed a note on 20. 1. 1981 to the effect that at present there is no vacancy, so the application is rejected and the petitioner be informed. The member, while considering the application of non-petitioner No. 2, rejected the petitioner's application and ordered for the grant of temporary permit to the non-petitioner No. 2 stating therein that after increase in the scope no application for the grant of non-temporary stage carriage permit has been received and the application received prior to the increase in scope, is summarily rejected. There was only one application for the grant of temporary permit, of non-petitioner No. 2, whereas there were two vacancies. Non-petitioner No. 2 had a ready vehicle, so considering the public interest a temporary permit for a period of 4 months was granted to non-petitioner No. 2 for the reason that it may take considerable time in the grant of permanent permits. Temporary permit was accordingly issued on 21. 8. 1981. Bhallaram petitioner in writ petition No. 1512 of 1981, is an existing operator holding a non-temporary stage carriage permit JU/17/13 duly renewed upto 15. 2. 1981 in respect of his stage carriage No. RJE 3715, which he operates on the aforesaid amalgamated route in rotation with other 13 buses of the co-operators. The petitioners have challenged the grant of temporary permit, namely, on the ground that the application of Madanlal for the grant of non-temporary stage carriage permit was pending and his application was not liable to be summarily rejected. In view of the pendency of his application, the grant of temporary permit to non-petitioner No. 2 was without jurisdiction. His application should have been considered and dealt with under Sec. 57 (3) of the Act. There is a controversy between the parties as to whether the Secretary communicated the order of rejection of Madanlal's application to him. However, the petitioners have alleged that the order of rejection of Madanlal's application by the Secretary is without jurisdiction for which there is no dispute between the parties.

(3.) I have heard Shri R. R. Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner Madan Lal and Shri J. G. Chhangani, learned counsel for the petitioner Bhallaram and Shri Rajesh Balia, learned Deputy Government Advocate and Shri R. N. Munshi, learned counsel for Shri Ramgopal Rajpurohit.