SHIVCHARAN LAL Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are three writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution which can conveniently be dealt with together. The subject-matter of writ petition No 657 of 1967 Shivcharanlal vs. Regional Transport Authority Jaipur and writ petition No. 709/67 Daulatram vs. Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur is an order of the Regional Transport Authority Jaipur, dated 16-10-67 in pursuance of circulation note No. 498/67 of even date granting permits on Alwar Pahadi via Nagar, Sikri Gopalgarh route one each to respondents Dharamchand Kapoorchand Jain and Ved Prakash respectively. The subject-matter of writ petition No. 739 of 1967 Sumat Prasad Jain vs. Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur is an order of the Regional Transport Authority fixing certain timings for the running of the buses of these respondents. I may narrate the facts with reference to Shivcharanlal's writ petition here. I

(2.) THE route in question is Alwar to Pahadi via Gopalgarh, Sikri and Nagar. It is 57 miles in length and is an A-Class route. THE petitioner applied for grant of a non-temporary stage carriage permit over this route on 9th December, 1966. THE substance of his application was published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated 9-3-1967, in accordance with the provisions of sec. 57 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 hereinafter referred to as the Act for inviting objections within 30 days from the date of the publication of the notification in the Gazette. According to the petitioner, no objections were preferred against his application within the prescribed time. His grievance is that although his application had become ripe for consideration at the hands of the Regional Transport Authority, the latter did not consider it along with the applications of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and leaving out his application, the Regional Transport Authority decided to grant one permit to each of these respondents. This is in a nut-shell the case set up by the present petitioner.

(3.) IT is sufficient to quote the relevant observations from Bhonrilal's case (supra) to make this point: ". . . . . . . IT was the plain duty of the Regional Transport Authority to publish all the applications that were pending at the time it ordered the publication of respondents' applications and then to consider them together so that their just and proper disposal would be ensured. " What is to be remarked in the above passage is that these applications are to be considered together so that their just and proper disposal should be ensured.