MOHAN LAL Vs. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, JODHPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this case is an existing operator of Jodhpur Sardarsamand, Marwar Junction -Sojat City existing route. The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are existing operators of Jodhpur Pipar Khejerla Borunda and Jodhpur Palasani Hungaon amalgamated route (hereinafter referred to as the amalgamated route) It appears that there are 3 permits on the amalgamated route including those of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 One of the existing operators of the amalgamated route submitted an application to the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the RTA) on Feb. 7, 1975 for inclusion of the portion of the route from Hungaon to Sojat City in the existing permits on the amalgamated route. It appears that thereafter all the existing operators of the amalgamated route made separate but identical applications to the RTA praying that a temporary extension may be allowed in respect of the route of their permits for a period of 4 months from Hungaon to Sojat City, by granting them temporary permits from Hungaon to Sojat City. This matter came up for consideration before the RTA on June 21, 1975 when the RTA decided to grant a temporary extension in respect of the route of the existing permits on the amalgamated route from Hungaon to Jagarwas vide its resolution Annexure P/3 and also directed that temporary permits be granted to the operators of the amalgamated route in respect of the portion of the route from Hungaon to Jagarwas. The RTA also resolved that the matter in respect of the inclusion of the portion of the route from Jagarwas to Sojat City in the existing per nits on the amalgamated route be fixed for consideration in July, 1975 after notice to the existing operators of over lapping routes. There upon notices were issued to the petitioner & Ors operators of his route and other over -lapping routes and an objection was filed which purports to be on behalf of four existing operators of Jodhpur Sojat City and Marwar Junction existing route, including the petitioner and the existing operators of Pali -Mundwa route. The respondents have, however, submitted a photo state copy of the said objections (Annexure P/2 on record) and it appears therefrom that although in the said objections the name of the petitioner does appear, but the same were signed only by one person, namely Mangilal, The matter ultimately came up before the RTA for consideration on October 17, 1975 and the RTA decided that temporary permits for a period of 4 months be issued for the portion of the route from Hungaon to Sojat City and further that the proposal relating to the extension of the amalgamated route upto Sojat city be considered after publication A copy of the resolution passed by the RTA on October 17, 1975 has been placed on record and has been marked Annexure P/6. The allegation of the petitioner is that after the aforesaid resolution was passed by the RTA on October 17, 1975 the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 submitted applications for grant of temporary permits and in those applications for the purpose for which the temporary permits were required by them was mentioned as to carry passengers and temporary particular need. After these applications were submitted, the Secretary, RTA. issued temporary permits to the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 for a period of 4 months for the portion of the route from Hungaon to Sojat City. In the temporary permits so issued to these respondents, the purpose of the journey was specified as 'to carry regular passengers'. One of the temporary permits was granted in the name of Lal Mohammed, while two others were granted in the name of Baluram, respondent No. 3. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the grant of the aforesaid temporary permits.

(2.) The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the temporary permits have not been granted in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act), as neither a particular temporary need existed nor the same has been found to exist by the RTA, It has further been submitted that Lal Mohammed died almost three years back and no temporary permit could have been granted by the RTA in his name, nor any application for the grant of a temporary permit could have been submitted by the respondent No. 2 in the name of Lal Mohammed.

(3.) Mr. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 raised three preliminary objections. His first submission is tint there were 8 permits on the amalgamated route but only two persons, who were holding three permits, were made parties to the writ petition, while the resolution of the RTA (Annexure P/6) granting temporary permits enures for the benefit of all the existing permit holders of the amalgamated route & as such the petitioner should be deemed to have acquiesced in the grant of the aforesaid temporary permits and the writ petition was not maintainable, as other permit holders were not made parties to the writ petition. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this connection that till the writ petition was filed only three temporary permits bad been issued copies of which have been placed on record as Annexures P/10, P/11 and P/12 & as those temporary permits were obtained by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 only, the grant in their favour was challenged by the petitioner in the writ petition, as it could not be known at that time as to which of the other existing operators of the amalgamated route would avail of the grant made vide resolution Annexure P/6 It is not disputed that at the time when the writ petition was filed only three permits were issued. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that the petitioner had acquiesced in the grant of permits to the remaining permit holders & the explanation furnished by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this respect appears to be reasonable. The aforesaid preliminary objection, therefore, does not prevail.