GANPAT SINGH Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY JODHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 13th August, 1963. The petitiONers submitted applicatiONs for renewal of their permits ON 29th May, 1963. Those applicatiONs were, however, not sent by R. T. A. for publicatiON with the result that the entire period of their permits expired without any decisiON about renewal of their permits. The petitiONers, therefore, applied for issue of temporary permits during the pendency of their applicatiONs for renewal of their nON-temporary permits. They were granted temporary permits for a period of two mONths from 13th August, 1963 to 13th October, 1963. Their applicatiON, for nON-temporary permits still remained undisposed of and, therefore, they presented fresh applicatiONs for temporary permits. The RegiONal Transport Authority again granted temporary permits to them from 14th October, 1963 to 13th December, 1963. It appears that the attentiON of the RegiONal Transport Authority was drawn by Messrs Jai Bharat Bus Service and it was pointed out that the secONd temporary permits granted to the petitiONers were against the provisiONs of sec. 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). ThereupON the Secretary, RegiONal Transport Authority, Jodhpur, by his letter dated 21st October, 1963, informed the petitiONers that the temporary permits granted to them ON 10th October, 1963 were invalid and they were directed not to ply their buses ON the said route. The petitiONers filed appeals against the said order before the Transport Appellate Tribunal and also requested it to grant stay order,but the Tribunal refused to allow the stay applicatiON. The petitiONer, therefore, presented the present writ applicatiON in this court.

(2.) IT is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the temporary permits issued to his clients on 10th October, 1963, were valid and the petitioners ought not to have been restrained from plying their buses. IT is next urged that the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority should not have passed the order restraining them plying their buses without giving them a notice and a chance of hearing. IT is contended that the said order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural Justice. IT is, therefore, prayed that the said order should be quashed and the respondents should be directed to allow the petitioners to ply their buses under the temporary permits till 13th December, 1963, The petitioners have presented a second application with an alternative prayer to the effect that in case the first prayer cannot be allowed, the Regional Transport Authority should be directed by a writ of mandamus to publish and dispose of their applications for renewal of the non-temporary permits expeditiously.