MOHAMMAD JAMIL Vs. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 266 of the 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-Chhipa-barod-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 25th May, 1954, recorded a 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. , and 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. , and that the R. T. A. had committed error in no 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 cosi-dered as an objection, because it had not been stamped. That explanation was not 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,was 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 holder. Messrs. Mohammad Jamil and Kishan Gopal have come to this Court which this petition, 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) of the Motor Vehicles Act and that it had not 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 petitioner in any 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.