HEERALAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ application by Heeralal, Babula) and others under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the appellate tribunal of the State transport Authority dated 29-1-1958, by which the appeal of Babulal and others-against a resolution of the Regional Transport Authority Jodhpur dated the 27th and 28th May, 1957, was dismissed as incompetent.

(2.) THE material facts are these. Petitioner No. 6 Babulal was a permit-holder for plying a stage carriage on the Sojat Road, Sojat City, Bilara route. There is also no dispute that petitioner No. 1 Heeralal obtained a transfer of the former's permit in march 1958. The other petitioners have also described themselves as bus operators on this route. It is, however, contended by the contesting respondents that these petitioners were not permit-holders at the relevant times and, therefore, have no 'locus standi' to make the present application. We consider it unnecessary to enter into any further detail as respects petitioners nos. 2 to 5 in this connection because petitioner Babulal was certainly a permit-holder at all relevant times, that is, up to the stage the appeal was decided by the appellate tribunal of the State Transport Authority, and Heeralal has since obtained a valid transfer of the permit from Babulal and is, therefore, prima facie authorised to file the present application in any case. The opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5 are the permit-holders on the Ranawas, Sojat road, Jetaran, Marwar Jn. route. On 18-4-1957, the last named persons applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur, for variation of their route Marwar junction. Jetaran so as to permit them to go from Devil to Bilara instead of from devli to Jetaran. This variation involved an over-lapping of the route operated by babulal for about ten miles from Atpara to Bilara. The application in due course was published in the Rajasthan Gazette, and the regional Transport Authority sanctioned the variation by resolution No. 42 dated ,28-5-1957, The petitioner Babulal and some other persons consequently filed an appeal before the appellate tribunal of the State Transport Authority. They also applied for a stay order and obtained it. The contesting opposite parties applied to have the stay order vacated, but the stay order was confirmed. The appeal came up for hearing before the appellate tribunal on 29-1-1958, and it was rejected on the ground that the appellants had failed to object before the regional Transport Authority when the proposed diversion was published in the rajasthan Gazette. It was further observed that the appellants had no right of appeal because under Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act (No. IV) of 1939 (hereinafter called the Act), it was pre-requisite that the appellants should have made an objection under Section 57 (5) of the Act. Apparently the learned members of the appellate tribunal had Clause (f) of Section 64 of the Act in view when they said this, and on the view that the appeal was incompetent, the tribunal refused to go into the merits of the case and disposed of the appeal as incompetent. It is this order which is being challenged before us in this writ application.

(3.) THE question for determination therefore is whether the order of the Regional transport Authority varying the route in a case like the present was and is appealable to the appellate tribunal under any of the clauses of Section 64 of the act. This point came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in jairamdas v. Regional Transport Authority, AIR 1957 Raj 312, and it was held that a rival permit-holder had a right of appeal against an order varying the conditions of his permit (and the variation in the area of the permit was held to be one such condition) under Clause (b) of Section 64 of the Act, as such variation was likely to affect his interest and he would, therefore, be aggrieved by it. It was indeed pointed out that ordinarily and in the vast majority of cases, it is only the permit-holder under Clause (b) who would be competent to file an appeal against an order varying the conditions of his permit. But where such variation was made and affected the position of a rival permit-holder in the same or neighbouring area, the applicability of Clause (b) could not be legitimately resisted. It was also laid down that the exercise of this right by persons other than the permit-holder called for caution, and that the word "aggrieved" in Clause (b) must be given a positive and tangible meaning and that there could be no real aggrievement where merely a member of the public was affected as much as any other member of that indeterminate body, and such a person could scarcely be held to be a person aggrieved within the meaning of this clause. This case was of course decided on the law as it stood before the Motor Vehicles amendment Act (No 100) of 1956 was brought into force though by the amendment Act Sections 48 and 57 of the Act had already been amended when this case came on for decision before this Court. But, as stated in the judgment, the amended section could not be given a retrospective effect. On the view taken in (S) AIR 1957 Raj 313 (FB), therefore, a case like the present would squarely fall within the walls of Clause (b) of Section 64, and the appeal of the petitioner Heeralal and his co-appellants could not be thrown out as incompetent. It is to be regretted that this decision was not brought to the notice of the learned members of the appellate tribunal though the decision reported as kashi Ram v. Ram Saroop, AIR 1953 Vindh Pra 41, taking a contrary view on this very point was brought to the notice of the Tribunal and was followed by it.