POPAT LAL Vs. THE RAJASTHAN STATE TRANSPORT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts which have given rise to this writ petition briefly are that a non -temporary stage carriage permit was granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur to M/s. Vagad Motor Service on Bansware -Dungarpur via Talwara, Garbi, Sagwara route (hereinafter referred to as the route' The aforesaid permit appears to have been granted as an alternative route permit in lieu of a permit on Dungarour Ratanpur route, as appears from a copy of the permit placed on record as Ex. 1. The aforesaid permit was valid upto July 1, 1968 and it was renewed thereafter for a period of three years upto July 1, 1970, M/s. Vagad Motor Service applied for a further renewal of the aforesaid permit on December 20, 1970. The application for renewal came up for consideration before the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as the R.T.A.) on April 26, 1971 and the renewal, of the permit appears to have been allowed by the RTA subject to the condition of production of a 1659 or higher model vehicle upto December 31, 1971. A peremptory condition also appears to have been imposed in respect of the grant of the renewal of the permit of M/s. Vagad Motor Service, to the effect that in case the permit holder failed, to replace the existing vehicle by a 1959 or above model vehicle by December 31, 1971, the permit would automatically stand cancelled. It was not disputed at any stage that M/s. Vagad Motor Service failed to replace the existing vehicle by a 1959 or higher model vehicle upto December 31, 1971. However, on December 30, 1971 the permit holder submitted an application before the Secretary, R.T.A. to the effect that he may be allowed two months' further time to replace the existing vehicle by a vehicle of 1959 or higher model and till then the existing vehicle, bearing registration No. R.J.J. 135 may be allowed to be plied on the route. The Secretary, R.T.A. informed the owner of M/s. Vagad Motor Service by his letter dated January 22, 1972 that permission for extension of time, for a period of two months with effect from January 1, 1972 was granted to him to employ a prescribed model vehicle in place of the existing vehicle, in respect of his permit on the route, failing which the permit would be treated as cancelled. The permit -holder does not appear to have employed a vehicle of 1000 or higher model in respect of his permit on the route even within the aforesaid extended period of two months.

(2.) The petitioner meanwhile applied for the grant of a non -temporary stage carriage permit on the route and his application came up for consideration before the RTA on April 10, 1972 The RTA took note of the fact that M/s. Vagad Motor Service had failed to replace its existing vehicle No. RJJ. 135 by a 1959 or higher model vehicle within the prescribed time namely upto December 31, 1971 or even within he extended period of two months, nor it obtained any endorsement of renewal on the permit, either in respect of the existing vehicle or in respect of a new vehicle and in those circumstances, in view of the peremptory condition imposed the RTA, the permit stood automatically revoked. In the vacancy caused on the route on account of the revocation of the permit of M/s. Vagad Motor Service, a non -temporary stage carriage permit was granted to the petitioner on the route by the RTA by the resolution dated April 10, 1972. A permit was also issued to the petitioner on the route on June 6, 1972 in pursuance of the aforesaid resolution of the R.T.A.

(3.) M/S. Vagad Motor Service filed an appeal as well as revision petition against the resolution of the RTA dated April 10 1972 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan (briefly referred to hereinafter as the Tribunal'). The Tribunal by its order dated November 27, 1972 held that an appeal was incompetent, as the case of M/s. Vagad Motor Service did not fall under any of the clause of Sec. 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act hereinafter referred to as the Act') However, the Tribunal was of the view that revision petition under Sec. 64A of the Act was maintainable. The Tribunal considered the resolution of the RTA dated April 10, 1972 as an order canceling the permit of M/s. Vagad Motor Services and held that as no reasonable opportunity of hearing was given to the permit holder, the permit could not have been revoked or cancelled by the RTA. The Tribunal was of the view that a condition was imposed upon the permit holder to replace its existing vehicle by a 1959 or higher model vehicle and in case that condition was not complied with, a notice under Sec. 60 of the Act should have been given by the RTA to the permit holder to shows cause why the permit should not be cancelled. Thus the Tribunal came to the conclusion that permit should legal order of revocation or cancellation of the permit of M/s. Vagad Motor Service and as such there was no vacancy for the grant of a fresh non -temporary stage carriage permit on the route. In the circumstances, the Tribunal set aside the resolution of the RTA granting a non -temporary stage carriage permit on the route in favour of the petitioner. It is against this order of the Tribunal that the present writ petition has been filed in this Court.