GANI MOHAMMED Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions arise out of the same subject matter and as such it would be proper to dispose them of by a common order.

(2.) THE facts in which these writ petitions arise may be briefly stated. THEre is a bus route from Gangapur to Deogarh via Raipur and Kareda (hereinafter referred to as 'the route') which lies in the Udaipur region of the State of Rajasthan. THE route is 55 miles long and 'a' class. THE petitioner applied for the grant of a non-temporary stage carriage permit on the route and according to the case of the petitioner no objections were filed against his application for the grant of a permit on the route, as a copy of any such objection was not received by the petitioner, as required under Section 57 (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). THE matter regarding the consideration of the application of the petitioner for grant of a permit on the route came up before the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the R. T. A. ') on April 22, 1969. Amar Singh respondent No. 3 (in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 896 of 1973) and another person Nathulal Dad appeared as objectors before the R. T. A. and contested the opening of the new route from Gangapur to Deogarh via Raipur and the grant of a permit to the petitioner on the route. THE R. T. A. by its resolution dated April 22, 1969 decided to open the aforesaid new route and also by the same resolution decided to grant a non-temporary stage carriage permit on the route to the petitioner for a period of three years. In consequence of the aforesaid resolution of the R. T. A. a permit was issued to the petitioner on June 6, 1969.

(3.) IN A. M. Allison vs. B. L. Sen (4) it was observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court : - 'the High Court of Assam had the power to refuse the writs if it was satisfied that there was no failure of justice, and in these appeals which are directed against the orders of the High Court in applications under Art. 226 we could refuse to interfere unless we are satisfied that the justice of the case requires it. But we are not so satisfied. We are of opinion that, having regard to the merits which have been concurrently found in favour of the respondents both by the Deputy Commissioner, Sibsagar, and the High Court, we should decline to interfere. " IN the present case, as I have already observed above, the result of setting aside the appellate order of the Tribunal would lead to the restoration of the order of the R. T. A. which is patently erroneous. I, therefore, think it proper, in the circumstances of the present case, to decline to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, in the matter of the grant of a non-temporary stage carriage permit to the petitioner on the route. Moreover, it would be proper in the present case to direct the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur to consider afresh within reasonable time the applications for grant of permits on the route including that of the petitioner. It would also be proper, in the circumstances of the present case, that the petitioner who is plying his vehicle on the route since the year 1969 be allowed to continue to ply his vehicle on the route till the matter relating to the grant of permits on the route is decided afresh by the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur, so that inconvenience may not be otherwise caused to the travelling public owing to the consequent discontinuation of the bus service, at present provided on the route by the petitioner.