AUTOMOBILE TRANSPORT RAJPUTANA Vs. NATHURAM MIRDHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution against an appellate order under the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter called the Act) granting 5 further permits along the Ajmer-Beawar route to respondents Nos. 2 to 6. The petitioners are the existing operators on the route. Members of the Automobile Transport ltd. , petitioner No. 1, hold 6 permits on this route. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 hold one permit each.

(2.) THE facts which have given rise to this application are these. In its meeting held on 25-2-56 the Ajmer State Transport Authority decided to increase the number of buses operating on this route from 14 to 17. Applications for the grant of three permits were consequently invited by means or a notice published in accordance with the Rules prescribed by the Ajmer Government for publishing the applications for grant of permits under Setion 57 of the Act. No less than 102 bus owners filed applications for the grant of further permits for the route. These applications included two applications by Naraindas Lohia, chairman of the Automobile Transport (Rajputana) Ltd. , petitioner No. 1 (one in his own name and one in the name of Messrs. Lohia Transport Co.) and one by petitioner No. 3 Smt. Gulab Devi. No one filed any objection that the existing number of permits issued for this route were sufficient to meet the needs of the traffic. These applications were considered by the Ajmer State Transport Authority at its meetings dated 2-7-56, 12-7-56, 18-7-56, 1-8-56 and 16-8-56 and three permits were granted to Kedar Nath Heda, Baba Transport Co. and Brij Raj respectively. The remaining 99 applications for permits were rejected. These included the three applications on behalf of the petitioners referred to above and the 5 applications of respondents Nos. 2 to 6. Only respondents Nos. 2 to 6 filed appeals under Section 64 of the Act to the Chief commissioner Ajmer against the order of the Ajmer State Transport Authority refusing to grant them permits. Before these appeals could be decided the States reorganization Act came into force as a result of which the State of Ajmer was merged with the State of Rajasthan. The rules framed under the Act by the Ajmer state were adapted and the State of Rajasthan became the Appellate Authority in place of the Chief Commissioner. The appeals were heard by the Minister for Transport on 15-7-57. A decision was given by him on 24-7-57 holding that it was necessary to allow at least 5 more buses along the route in the interest of public to provide for weekly holiday and emergencies like breakdowns, sickness etc. , and granting 5 further permits to respondents Nos. 2 to 6. The present application was filed against that order on 22-8-57 challenging it inter-alia on the ground that the Minister was not competent to decide the appeals. This defect was subsequently remedied by the issuing of an order on 6-11-57 in the name of the Governor. The decision of the Transport Minister dated 24-7-57 was treated as advice to the Governor under Article 163 (1) of the Constitution, which was accepted and was embodied in the order. The writ application was then amended and this order was also challenged.

(3.) THE first contention on behalf of the petitioners is that the resolution of the ajmer State Transport Authority dated 25-2-56 deciding to increase the number of permits from 14 to 17 amounted to an order under Section 48 (a) as it stood before its amendment by Act No. 100 of 1956 and that this order was final and binding on the Appellate Authority who could not have increased the number ot permits while deciding an appeal against an order of the State Transport Authority refusing to grant a permit. It may be mentioned here that the present proceedings are governed by the unamended Act. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Bajranglal v. Rule T. A. Jodhpur, 1958 Raj LW 370, in which it was held that when the Regional Transport authority takes a decision under Sub-section (3) of Section 47 of the amended Act it has to consider the matters provided in Sub-section (1) one ot which is that it shall take into consideration any representation made by the existing operators and that unless some kind of notice is given to the existing operators enabling them to make a representation its decision is invalid. It was argued that these observations are equally applicable to the Appellate authority while it is deciding an appeal under Section 64 of the Act and that it is consequently not open to the Appellate Authority to increase the number ot permits along the route widiout giving notice cf its intention of doing so to the existing operators.