HAZARIMAL Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are three connected applications under Art. 226 of the Constitution by Hazarimal (No. 301), Banshilal (No. 333), and Surajmal (62) against the Regional Transport Authority Jaipur and others for issue of a writ, order or direction prohibiting the Regional Transport Authority and other from interfering with the applicants in plying their buses on the Sikar Deedwana road.

(2.) THE facts, which are not in dispute, are these - THE applicants were granted permits by the Jodhpur Regional Transport Authority on the 13th and 14th March, 1953. THEse per mit were to be valid up to the 31st of December, 1955. As part of this route lay in the Jaipur region, the applicants had to get the counter-signature of the Jaipur Transport Authority under sec. 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act. THEy applied to the Jaipur Authority on the 13th April, 1953, for countersignature. At the same time, a letter was also received by the Jaipur Authority from the Jodhpur Authority requesting the Jaipur Authority to counter-sign the permits. In the meantime, the Jaipur Authority had passed a resolution between the 20th and 24th March, 1953, with respect to this very route. By that resolution, it granted three permits to three persons and said that a fourth permit might be granted to any one recommended by the Jodhpur Authority. However, when the letter of the Jodhpur Authority was received along with application of two out of the present three applicants for counter signature, the Secretary of the Jaipur Authority counter-signed the permits for the period ending on the 30th of April, 1953. THE matter was put up before the Regional Transport Authority on the 28th of April, 1953, and the Regional Transport Authority resolved that it could not counter-sign the permits granted by the Jodhpur Authority, and that that Authority should be informed that only one permit would be counter-signed. It appears however that even after this resolution, the Jaipur Authority counter-signed the permits of all three applicants for a period ending 31st of July, 1953, or thereabout. THE matter was also referred by the Jaipur Authority to the State Transport Authority for decision. THEn there was further counter signature up to the 31st of August, 1953, in two of the cases. THEreafter, when the applicants again applied in September, 1953, to the Jaipur Authority praying their permit might be counter-signed temporarily till the decision of the State Transport Authority, there was no counter-signature by the Jaipur Authority, though it did not by any order refuse the request for counter-signature. THEreafter, it seems |hat the Jaipur Authority directed the Superintendent of Police, Sikar to take action in the matter as the permits were not counter-signed after the 31st of August, 1953. When the Superintendent of Police began to take action against the applicants, they gave notice to the Jaipur Authority, and to the Superintendent of Police. No reply was received from the Jaipur Authority but the Superintendent of Police informed them that he had taken action on the direction of the Jaipur Authority. THEreafter, the present applications were made to this Court.