MOHMMAD JAMIL Vs. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226, Constitution of India.

(2.) The petitioners are assignees of a permit granted by the R. T. A., Udaipur, for running a stage carriage on Baran-Chhipabarod-Chhabra route. They applied to the R. T. A. for curtailment of the route beyond Chhipabarod on the allegation that there was no motorable road from Chhipabarod to Chhabra. The R. T. A. on 25-5-1954, recorded 3 resolution that the application for curtailment had been duly notified, but no objection had been received and, therefore, it was resolved that curtailment be sanctioned. The Kotah Transport Ltd. filed an appeal before the S. T. A., & the S. T. A. found that an objection had, as a matter of fact, been filed before the R. T. A. by the Kotah Transport Ltd., & that the R. T. A, had committed error in not deciding that objection. An attempt was made by the Secretary R. T. A. to explain that 'the document submitted by the Kotah Transport Limited was not considered as an objection, because it had not been stamped. That explanation was not accepted by the S. T, A. and it was decided by the S. T. A. that the appeal be partially accepted, and the case remanded to the R. T. A. for reconsideration of the matter in the light of the objection filed by the Kotah Transport Limited, and till then the order of the R. T. A. regarding curtailment of the route, vide resolution No. 20(f) of 1954, be kept in abeyance. It was also added that the respondents, meaning thereby the petitioners Mohammad Jamil and Kishan Gopal, would ply on the original route as mentioned in the permit, which was obtained by them from the original permit holders. Messrs. Mohammad Jamil and Kishan Gopal have come to this Court with this petition, and it is contended on their behalf that the appeal before the S. T.A. was incompetent, and that in any case the objection could not be considered because it had not been shown that a copy of the objection had been supplied to them as required by Section 57 (4), Motor Vehicles Act, and that it had been shown that the Kotah Transport Limited was a person aggrieved. It was finally argued that the direction to continue to ply the bus was without jurisdiction and would prejudice the petitioners in proceedings that the R. T. A. may think of taking against the petitioners under Section 60, in case they do not comply with that direction.

(3.) It does not require much argument to see that the specification of the route in the permit is one of the conditions of the permit. Section 48, Clause (d), mentions the conditions which may be attached to a stage-carriage permit, and Sub-clause (iia) directs the specification of the routes which are to be used by the stage- carriage. Section 64, Clause (b) permits appeal by "any person aggrieved by the revocation or suspension of the permit or by any variation of the conditions thereof. It was argued that the variation of the conditions of a permit only allows an appeal to be filed by the holder of the permit in respect whereof the conditions are varied. Reliance is placed on -- 'Kali Mudaliar v. Vedachala Mudaliar', 1952 Mad 545 (AIR V 39) (A). There is no reasoning behind the case, and with great respect we are not prepared to take such a narrow view of Section 64 (b). It is very wide in its terms, and permits an appeal by any person aggrieved by any variation of the conditions of the permit, and does not restrict the right of appeal to the holder alone.