NATHURAM Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal directed against the judgement of the learned single Judge who dismissed the appellant's petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the grant of a stage carriage permit to respondent Hemraj by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter called "the S. T. A. T.) on Bikaner Salasar route.

(2.) TO appreciate the rival contention urged before us it will be necessary to recount a few facts. Bikaner - Salasar via Nhoka and Sujangarh is a 130-miles route in the Bikaner region. On October 9, 1958 a scope of 12 permits was fixed over the route by the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner (abbreviated as 'the R. T. A. '. The scope of 12 permits was increased to 18 by the R. T. A on the 30th October, 1965. Sixteen vehicles were plying on the Bikaner-Salasar route when on 12. 12. 67 the R. T. A. resolved to amalgamate the routs of (1) Nokha - Sujangarh, (2) Sujan-gash - Salasar and (3) Nokha - Bikaner with the Bikaner - Salasar route. On January 28, 1969 the R. T. A. determined the scope of the amalgamated route under sec. 47 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act at 24 vehicles with six return trips. On June 24, 1969 the applications of respondent No. 3 Hemraj and some 15 other persons for permits on Bikaner-Salasar route came to be considered but the R. T. A. rejected all the applications on the ground that as 24 vehicles were already plying on the route there existed no vacancy. Respondent No. 3 Hemraj preferred an appeal against the resolution of the R. T. A. by its order dated the 19th July, 1971 allowed the appeal on the ground that the and the S. T. A. scope fixed by the R. T. A. on 30th October, 1965 on Bikaner-Salasar route via Nokha and Sujangarh stood in tact and because only 16 vehicles were plying there were two clear vacancies and Hemraj was entitled to a permit. Aggrieved by that decision Nathuram appellant questioned the decision of the S. T. A. T. by means of a writ but it was dismissed by the learned single Judge mainly on the grounds (i) that Nathuram's predecessor-in-title did not file any objections to the application of Hemraj for a permit as envisaged by sec. 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act and as such the writ by him was not maintainable; (ii) that the petitioner made wrong statement of fact in para 3 of the petition when he said that only 3 routes, namely, (1) Bikaner-Salasar, (2) Nokha. Sujangarh and (3) Sujangarh - Salasar were amalgamated on 12-12-1967 whereas in point of fact the fourth route Bikaner - Nokha was also amalgamated; (iii) the learned single Judge held that Hemraj's application was published in the Gazette on 29-6-1968 and was, therefore, ripe for consideration on that date. It was on 28-1-1969 that the scope on the amalgamated route was revised and the crucial time to ascertain whether there was a vacancy or not was 29-6-1968 when there existed 2 vacancies on the un amalgamated route of Bikaner - Salsar and therefore, the S. T. A. was right in granting a permit; (iv) and lastly the learned single Judge held that the scope of the amalgamated route was not properly determined.

(3.) THE argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that extension of a permit should be treated as if it was an inter-regional permit in our opinion is devoid of force and Nilkant Prasad's case (10) case does not help him. Extension of a permit is in essence variation of the condition of a permit by the inclusion of a new route or routes permissible under sec. 57 (8) of the Motor Vehicles Act.