SHANTI DEVI Vs. S T A T

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner has alleged that she is a displaced bus operator as her non -temporary stage carriage permit bearing No. CHR/21/4 in respect of her bus No. RJR. 2814 of 1963 model was plying on Taranagar -Sardarshahar route duly renewed and valid upto 18 -8 -1977 was cancelled on 1 -11 -1976 on account of the implementation of the approved scheme. A displaced operator is entitled to cash compensation under Section 68G(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) or he can be granted a permit for an alternate route in lieu of the said cash compensation. The petitioner did not prefer cash compensation and moved the R.T.A. that she may be rehabilitated on an alternate route as a displaced bus -operator. The R.T.A. accepted the alternate route offered by her which was from Bhadra to Nuwa via Mahalon -ka -bas (Doonglana -Raslana) etc. Initially the route suggested was to pass through Doongrana because that place was covered by the notified scheme, therefore, the route was diverted to Mahalon -ka -bas (Doongrana) and the petitioner was granted along with one Bhagchand temporary stage carriage permits to ply these buses on the newly carved out route. The R.T.A. in its resolution dated 20 -7 -1977 approved this route as a 'C' class route with a length of 38 kms and decided its scope to consist of three buses and two return trips. According to the petifioner Mahalon -ka -bas and Dungrana are two different villages with a distance of 2 kms existing in between. The State Government has also issued order to rehabilitate the displaced operators of the nationalised scheme. Ordinarily the Government order provides for the rehabilitation of the displaced operators on 'A' class routes and that principles should be applied to B and C class routes also. The R.T.A. Bikaner invited applications for the grant of three permits on the Bhadra Nuwa route. Nine persons have applied for grant of permit on this route including the petitioner. According to the petitioner she described the specified route correctly in her application whereas the persons who have been granted permits, i.e. non -petitioners No. 4 Mangiram and No. 5 Jagdish Chandra Yadav have described the route as passsing through Doongrana which was actually earlier rejected by the R.T.A. as it over lapped the nationalised route to the extent of 13 kms whereas the petitioner's application for grant of permit was rejected along with Bhagchand. In the meeting of the R.T.A. dated 13 -4 -1978 the petitioner pointed out to the R.T.A. her comparative merits for grant of the permit but they were all overlooked and three permits were granted to one Khanu khan who is alleged to be the driver of the husband of the petitioner and non -petitioner No. 4 and 5, i.e. Mangiram Yadav and Jagdish Chandra Yadav. In granting these permits the petitioner has submitted that the R.T.A. did not take into consideration the fact that she is a displaced operator. She had one ready spare bus with her bearing No. RJI 3135 of 1971 and she had experience to ply her bus on this route in pursuance of a temporary permit granted to her. The petitioner objected the grant of permit to Khanukhan because he possessed no experience of the bus transport business and grant of permit to non -petitioners No. 4 and 3 was opposed on account of the fact that they have failed to describe the route correctly and their contention of higher model buses with them was not genuine but it was a dishonest assertion. According to her Mangiram was not a resident of the route but is resident of Haryana. The R.T.A only considered the criteria of possession of higher model vehicles and gave no reason for the refusal of the permits to the petitioner. Thus according to her this is a non -speaking order. It was also contended that the ready bus which is offered for grant of permit by Mangiram was not at all in existence This was dismandled before 10 years and was sold to the 'kabadis' and only its permit was used by its owner for earning money. She, therefore, filed appeal before the S.T.A.T. but that appeal has also been rejected on 22 -3 -1979. According to her both the Authorities have over looked the provisions of Section 48(1) and Section 68(FF) of the Act. They have also failed to make assessment of of the comparative merits of the parties in grant of permit. The fact which has to be taken into consideration for grent of permit as per Clauses (a) to (f) of Section 44(1) of the Act were also overlooked. According to the petitioner Mangiram got the permit in his favour by practising misrepresentation and fraud on the R.T.A.

(2.) ON behalf of the non -petitioners no formal reply has been filed but Sri B.L. Maheshwari who represents non -petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 Shri Bharat Vyas who represents non -petitioner No. 3 and Shri Rajendra Vyas who represents non -petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 have submitted their detailed arguments in reply to the arguments made by Shri J.G. Chhangani learned Counsel for the petitioner. It may be mentioned here that non -petitioner No. 3 Shri Khanukhan has expired. No relief has been sought against him by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and therefore, he has prayed that his name may be deleted from the array of non -petitioners. In this respect an application was filed by Shri Chhangani, learned Counsel for the petitioner on 12 -8 -1986. In view of this application the name of Khanukhan non -petitioner No. 3 is deleted from the array of non -petitioners.

(3.) MR . Chhangani submitted that the order of the RTA marked Ann. P.8 is a non -speaking order and unless a speaking order giving valid reasons for the rejection the application is passed, according to him that order is nonest. In this respect he placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Sardar Kulwant Singh v. AASTA Rajasthan 1956 RLW, 395 wherein it was held that the order of the Tribunal like the Regional Transport Authority, which exercises judicial functions, should ex -facie show reasons in a succinct form for making that order, and so also the order of the Appellate Authority when it proceeds to set aside the order of the lower Tribunal. It is not sufficient to write down only stock -phrases, as for example 'it would not be in the public interest to grant permits on this route' or that 'there is enough force in what has been stated on behalf of the appellant'. What their Lordships wanted to convey by that judgment was that the order of the RTA should be intelligible and should give reasons for the acceptance of certain applications and if other applications cannot be accepted then its reasons should be either expressly stated or should be implicit in the order that has been passed. By Ann. P/8 the RTA has held that on this route there is a scope of three buses with two return trips. There are nine applications. It has not accepted the applications of applicants Nos. 3, 6 and 9 because they have no ready vehicles with them. It has granted permit to applicants Nos. 8, 7 and 4. Applicant No. 8, i.e. Ramesh Chand is a resident of a village falling on the route and as a 160 wheelbase vehicle of 1970 is available with him which is suitable for a 'C class route and, therefore, he was granted the permit. It has granted permit to applicant No. 7 Mangiram because firstly he is an ex -service man and he has a licence for driving a heavy vehicle and thirdly he was in possession of a vehicle of 1966 model. Shri Khanukhan was granted permit because he had a ready bus with him of 1964 model and secondly that he was a driver. It was argued before the RTA that he has recently purchased the vehicle from the husband of the petitioner Shantidevi. He is actually his driver and, therefore, it is a 'benami' transaction but that objection was over -ruled and the permit was granted. However, the petitioner only had 1963 model vehicle with her and, therefore, she was not preferred to the three persons mentioned above. The applications of the other persons were rejected because they had a lower model vehicle with them or they were lacking in comparative merit so sar as the three successful applicants were concerned. Although they possessed vehicles of requisite model but as the scope was only three, these three persons were preferred to the rest of the six and, therefore, the applications of the rest of the six were rejected for want of future scope.