SHASHI KANT Vs. TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJASTHAN JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a special appeal against the judgment of a learned single Judge dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellant.

(2.) THE appellant is an existing operator of Dungarpur Sagwara Galiyakot route. The Regional Transport Authority granted two permits to the Rajas-than State road Transport Corporation under Section 68-F (1-A) of the Motor Vehicles Act for a route which completely overlapped the route of the appellant. A representation was filed opposing the grant by the Dungarpur-Sagwara Banswara-Galiyakot Bus association. Annexure P-5 is that representation. It was signed by the Manager of the Bus Association as well as by two members of the Association namely Bhawani shankar and the appellant Shashi Kant. Despite the representation two permits were granted to the Raja-sthan State Road Transport Corporation. The appellant filed an appeal before the Transport Appellate Tribunal. It was dismissed on a preliminary objection that the appellant did not deliver a copy of his written representation to the Rajas-than State Road Transport Corporation as required by section 57 (4 ). It was contended on behalf of the appellant be-fore the Tribunal that the representation, annexure P-5. which was admittedly delivered to it. should be treated as a representation not only on behalf of the Bus Association but also an behalf of himself as it was signed by him. This argument was not accepted and the appeal was rejected on the above preliminary ground. The appellant then filed a writ petition. The learned single Judge agreed with the view taken by the transport Appellate Tribunal and dismissed it

(3.) THE same contention has been put forward on behalf of the appellant before us as was put forward by him before the Tribunal and before the learned single judge. We see no reason to differ from the view taken by the learn ed single judge. The appellant will be deemed to have signed the representa tion as a member of the Association. If he had made a representation as an in dividual on his own behalf then alone he would have been entitled to file an appeal.