KOTAH TRANSPORT LTD Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are seven applications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In all these cases the facts are similar and the points raised are also the same. They are therefore being dealt with together. The petitioner in all these cases is Kotah Transport Limited, Kotah, and they are all directed against the Regional Transport Authority but there are some other persons also who have been impleaded as the opposite parties and they are different in each case. In Writ Application No. 591 Siraj Ahrnad has been made opposite party 2. In Writ Application No. 592 National Motors, Kotah, has been impleaded as opposite party 2. In Writ Application No. 593 'Messrs. Nazir Ahmad Abdul Majid are opposite party 2. In Writ Petition No. 595 Mohammad Bux Mistri has been impleaded as, opp: party 2. In Writ Application No. 596 Messrs. Rampratap Manakchand, & Messrs. Awatram Ratansingh are opposite parties 2 & 3, In Writ Petition No. 597 Messrs. Anandilal Badrilal are opposite party 2. In Writ Application No. 598 Messrs. Mohammad All Munnabhai, Messrs. Ujagarsingh Sethi & Bros, and Mr. Kewalram Sindhi are opposite Parties 2, 3 and 4, respectively.

(2.) The allegations of the petitioner which are common to all these cases are that the petitioner is a public limited company holding valid permits for certain buses plying on the following routes: 1. Kotah-Mangrol, 2. Kotah-Ramganjmadi, 3. Kotah-Chechat. 4. Kotah-Khatoli, 5. Kotah-Bakani, 6. Baran-Jhalrapatan via Khanpur, 7. Baran-Thana via Shahabad, that the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur, who is opposite party 1 in utter disregard of the provisions of Section 62, Indian Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, granted temporary permits on 30th and 31st May 1952 for a period of four months to the persons who have been impleaded opposite parties, for certain routes which are the routes covered by the permits of the petitioner or which coincide for some distance with the routes of the petitioner's permits; that the temporary permits so granted were to be effective up to 30-9-1952 but the Regional Transport Authority extended the temporary permits for a further period of three months; that the circumstances mentioned in Section 62, Indian Motor Vehicles Act did not exist at the time the temporary permits were issued by the Regional Transport Authority; that the petitioner was suffering heavy losses on account of the action of the Regional Transport Authority in issuing the aforesaid temporary permits; that the petitioner from time to time made representations to the Regional Transport Authority against their action of issuing temporary permits but to no avail. The petitioner, therefore, prayed that a writ or a direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India be issued to set aside the orders of the Regional Transport Authority granting temporary permits, that the petitioner may be awarded compensation for the losses suffered by him to the extent of Rs. 50/- per day in each case and lastly to restrain the opposite parties from plying their buses under the permits so granted.

(3.) In the reply filed by the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur, it has been admitted that the petitioner is a limited company and that it holds valid permits for plying stage carriages on the routes mentioned in the petitions and further it has also been admitted that temporary permits were granted to certain persons who have been impleaded as opposite parties to these writ applications for the routes which are in some cases the same as are covered by the permits of the petitioner or in other cases the routes for some distance of the temporary permits coincide with the routes of the petitioner's permits. It is further pleaded that at first the temporary permits were issued on 30th and 31st May 1952 but it is contested that those very permits were not renewed. The stand taken up by the Regional Transport Authority is that fresh temporary permits were issued after the expiry of the first permits. The reason why the temporary permits were issued is stated to be heavy traffic and inability of the existing buses to cope with the need. In short, the case of the Regional Transport Authority is that the temporary permits were issued in accor--dance with the provisions of law and that the Regional Transport Authority had absolute discretion to act in the way in which they have acted. In addition to the aforesaid points a new point was raised in the written statement filed by the Regional Transport Authority that there was no legal right in the petitioner to come to the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the petitions, it was prayed, should therefore be rejected. Delay in the filing of these petitions is also made a point by the Regional Transport Authority against the petitioner. The replies filed by the opposite parties other than the Regional Transport Authority are similar to the replies filed by the Regional Transport Authority, but in their reply in Writ Petition No. 596 Messrs. Awatram Ratansingh and Messrs, Rampratap Manakchand have stated that temporary permits in their favour had been issued by the Regional Transport Authority on 28-8-1952 as one of the permit holders had stopped plying his bus on the route for which a temporary permit had been issued in their favour. This was a particular temporary need in the meaning of Section 62 (C), Motor Vehicles Act for which the Regional Transport Authority had jurisdiction to act under the provisions of Section 62.