SATBIR SINGH Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two writ petitions which can be disposed of together because they raise the same common points. They challenge the grant of five temporary permits on the route Khetri to Nizampur. These have been issued by Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur by its resolution dated 26 -6 -76 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1282/76 and two by resolution of 12.7.76 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1281/76, to the respondents in these writ petition. There is inter state route of Khetri (Rajasthan) to Nizampur (Haryana) of 17 miles. Respondent no. 1 had fixed a scope of 5 permits on this route, and five non temporary permits had been granted including to the petitioner. This scope was raised to 7 by the State Transport Authority by its resolution no. 6 of 7.1.70 By a resolution no. 289 dated 19.6.71. Regional Transport Authority extended the route from Nizampur to Narnaul, five of operators including the petitioner who had originally been plying on Khetri to Nizampur moved an application for varying their permit by including Narnaul. In their permit and the same was done after following the procedure provided in the Act. Sometime in 1974 the Authority granted some temporary permits on the route Khetri to Nizampur. Some of the operators however took up the matter with the Regional Transport Authority which by its resolution of 21.1.75 took the view that no temporary permits should be issued beyond 28.2.75 and that 3 temporary permits which bad been granted upto 28.7.75 should be considered lapsed after that date. It appears that the State Transport Authority had taken the view that as scope had been raised to 7 permits on Khetri to Nizampur route and as out of those 7, 5 had obtained the inclusion of Narnaul in their permit, there were five vacancies on the Khetri -Nizampur route, and therefore had granted 3 temporary permits. The Regional Transport Authority some how did not think that was the correct view and it was therefore decided that no temporary permits will be given subsequent to 28 -2 -75.

(2.) It appears that respondents 2 to 4 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1282/76 moved the Regional Transport Authority for the grant of temporary permit from Khetri to Nizampur, the purpose mentioned by them was to carry regular service. The matter was put up before the Member Regional Transport Authority who by his order of 26.6.76 directed that for the convenience of public it was necessary to issue a temporary permit and the same may be issued for four months. It may be mentioned that respondents 2 and 4 have availed of the permit while respondent 3 though granted a permit has surrendered it. In the circulation note endorsed to the Member the scope was mentioned as 9 and the existing permits were mentioned as 3 and 6 vacancies were shown.

(3.) Similarly in the other writ petition 1281/76 respondents 2 and 3 applied for the grant of a temporary permit and the matter having been put up to the Member, Regional Transport Authority it was directed by him that permanent vacancies exist and that for the convenience of public issue of a temporary permit immediately was necessary and therefore the same may be issued. In the circulation note it was again noted that there was a scope of 9 and existing permits were 6 and 3 were vacancies. Obviously the permits which had been granted by order of 26.6.76 had been taken into account and that is why the existing permits were mentioned 6 and vacancies as 3, in the subsequent order of 12.7.76. The petitioner is aggrieved against the grant of these five permits and has come to this Court in the writ petitions.