SAINIKS MOTORS Vs. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by Sainiks Motors and two others under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and arises in the following circumstances:

(2.) The applicants are permit holders of certain buses plying on the Jodhpur, Pali, Sojat-Bar-Beswar route. It appears that there was some inconvenience to the public and the buses of the applicants, which orginally terminated at Bar, were allowed to go up to Beawar. It also appears that the permits were countersigned by the Ajmer authorities. There was also another bus service between Bilara and Bar and that was similarly extended for the same reason to Beawar and the permits in that case also were countersigned by the Ajmer authorities. In 1954, however, there was an application by these operators holding permits from Jodhpur to Beawar and Bilara to Beawar to the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur, by which they obtained an order that the extension granted up to Beawar would be subject to the condition that the Jodhpur-Beawar operators will make two daily return trips between Bar and Beawar and Bilara-Bar operators will make one daily return trip between Bar and Beawar. It seems that this caused inconvenience to certain persons who were travelling from Bilara to Beawar in January 1955. These persons then tried to find out from the office of the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur, why ail the buses from Bilara to Beawar did not go the whole way. They then came to know of the order of 15th of March 1954 fixing the ratio of 2:1. Thereupon they filed an appeal before the appellate authority against this order and the appellate authority passed what it calls a stay order in this connection.

(3.) The present application is to the effect that the persons, who have filed the appeal before the appellate authority, have no locus standi to do so and therefore, this Court should prohibit the appellate authority from hearing the appeal and from passing any order in that connection. The reliefs claimed in the writ application are not appropriate but the real relief which the applicants desire is that we should prohibit the appellate authority from hearing this appeal and passing any order whatsoever on it.