HARI TRANSPORT COMPANY Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On December 31, 1973 ten States and Union Administrations of Northern Zone in India, namely Bihar, Harayana, Himachal Pradesh Jammu & Kashmir, Punjab, Rajasthan, Utter Pradesh. West Bengal, Chandigarh and Delhi arrived at an inter -State agreement in respect of conveying long distance goods traffic. The aforesaid reciprocal agreement between the ten States of Northern Zone was published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated February 25, 1974 under sub -section 3(B) of Sec. 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and came into force with effect from January 1, 1974. According to this agreement 200 public carrier vehicles of Rajasthan were to be allowed composite permits by competent Transport Authorities in the State, which would be valid on all national and State highways chosen for operation of such permits. The competent Transport Authority was also authorised to issue to each such permit holder an authorisation to ply his public carrier vehicle in the other States, which were signatories to the inter -State agreement. The Director of Transport, Rajasthan by his letter dated April 30, 1974/May 9, 1974 informed all the Regional Transport Authorities within the State of Rajasthan about the aforesaid inter -State transport agreement and allocated 200 permits amongst the various Regional Transport Authorities in the State. The Jodhpur Regional Transport Authority was allotted 25 public carrier permits within the aforesaid quote of 200 permits available to Rajasthan for inter -State plying in the Northern Zone States. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur by a notification dated June 28, 1974 published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated July 25, 1974 invited applications for grant of 25 inter -State public carrier permits, in accordance with the reciprocal agreement between the ten Northern Zone States and in accordance with the allocation of such permits made by the Director of Transport, Rajasthan. The petitioner submitted an application in pursuance of the aforesaid notification issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur. The petitioner has alleged that the Regional Transport Authority heard the matter on December 16, 1974 and reserved its order. It appears that thereafter on March 14; 1975 the Additional Transport Commissioner, Rajasthan informed the various Regional Transport Authority in the State that the earlier allocation of Northern Zone inter -State public carrier permits made vide letter dated May, 9, 1974 was superseded and a fresh allotment of the inter -State public carrier permits was made amongst the various Regional Transport Authorities in the State. According to the fresh allocation thus made, the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur was allotted only ten Northern Zone inter State public carrier permits. Then by its resolution a dated March 16, 1975 (Annexure 3) the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur granted ten Northern Zone inter -State public carrier permits and the applications of the remaining applicants for grant of such permits, including that of the petitioner, were rejected on the ground that there was no more scope.

(2.) The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Regional Transport Authority was not at all justified by reducing the number of inter State public carrier permits fixed by it while inviting applications for grant of such permits and in granting lesser number of permits than the number for which applications were invited and considered. Learned counsel was, however unable to show that there was a breach of any statutory provisions if the Regional Transport Authority proceeded to grant only ten Northern Zone inter -State public carrier permits instead of 25 for which applications were invited by it, even at the time when the grant of such permits was made. It has no where been laid down in the Act that in the case of inter -State public carrier permits, the Regional Transport Authority is bound to grant specific number of permits for which applications were invited by it. The provisions of Sec. 55(2) of the Act which authorised the Regional Transport Authority to limit the number of transport vehicles for which public carrier permits may be granted in the region or in any specified area or any specified route with a the region is not attracted to the present case. The provisions of sub -section (2) of Sec. 55 of the Act are confined to the fixation of limit of permits in respect of routes or area within the region and it has no application in respect of the grant of inter -regional or inter -State public carrier permits. In the present case the permits were granted by the Regional Transport Authority, subject to the inter -State agreement published under sub Sec. (3 -B) of Sec. 63 of the Act and in pursuance thereof. However, out of the 200 permits which could have been granted by competent transport authorities in Rajasthan for plying of public carrier vehicles under the Northern Zone State inter permit scheme, it was for the State Government to distribute the number of permits amongst the five Regional Transport Authorities within the State. The argument of the learned counsel that once the State Govt. had allocated 25 inter -State public carrier permits to the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur, the aforesaid number could not have been reduced subsequently to ten permits after the applications in respect thereof had been invited and the applicant had been heard by the Regional Transport Authority concerned, cannot be accepted because the allocation of permits in the present case was made by the State Government by an administrative order which could have been superseded, altered or modified by a subsequent order, unless and until any right was vested in respect thereof in the petitioner. In case an inter -State permit would have been granted to the petitioner in pursuance of the aforesaid Northern Zone public carrier permit scheme, then certainly a right would have vested in him. But so long as no permit was granted to the petitioner or for that matter to any other person, no vested right came into existence and the State Government was free to reallocate, by a subsequent administrative order, the 200 Northern Zone inter -State public carrier permits, which could be granted by competent transport authorities of the State. In this connection the previsions of Sec. 43 of the Act may also be noticed, whereunder the State Govt. by means of a notification in the official gazette, after pre -publication and inviting objections in respect thereof may issue directions to the State Transport Authority to give effect to an agreement entered with the Central Government or other State Government relating to the regulation of motor transport or co -ordination with other means of transport and the conveying of long distance goods traffic. However, no such notification was admittedly issued by the State Government under Sec. 43(1) of the Act. On the other hand, the State Government resorted to the method of making an ad hoc allocation of inter -State public carrier permits by (sic) of an administrative order, which could have been rescinded or modified by it until vested right came into existence, either in the petitioner or any other person. The Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur could not have granted mote inter -State public carrier permits than those allotted to it by the order of the State Government dated March 14, 1975 and as such the Regional Transport Authority was perfectly justified in granting only ten permits for plying public carrier vehicles under the Northern Zone inter -State agreement. As the petitioner had no vested right, it cannot be said that he was aggrieved by the reduction in the number of inter -State permits allotted to the Jodhpur Regional Transport Authority Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to show that any legal right of the petitioner was infringed by the Regional Transport Authority. Jodhpur in granting only ten inter -State public carrier permits.