SOHAN SINGH Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY KOTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution is by one Sohan Singh who was an applicant for grant of a permit on an interstitial route Jhalawar to Pirawa via Soyat and by it he questions the validity of a resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, Kota passed at its meeting held on 10th/ 11th January, 1967 (Ex-1 on the record) by which a permit over this route was ordered to be granted to respondent No. 2 Umerdaraz for the portion Patan-Pirawa via Soyat in respect of his Vehicle No. RJR 4317. He prays for an appropriate writ, order or direction against the respondents. THE relevant facts emerging from the writ petition are briefly these:

(2.) THE route Jhalawar-Pirawa via Soyat is an 'a' class route which is 40 miles in length. Jhalawar is in Rajasthan and so is Pirawa, but route passes through Madhya Pradesh territory for about 7 miles and the town in Madhya Pradesh that is embraced by it is Soyat. It is thus an interstatal route. THEre was a reciprocity arrangement between the State of Rajasthan and the State of Madhya Pradesh and the number of trips to be provided by the two States was 2:2. This was the reciprocity till 1963, but it was later on revised to 4:4, that is, each State was to provide buses which would be having 4 single trips on each day. On Rajasthan side prior to revision of reciprocity there was one permit held by Messrs Jhalawar Transport Service and the bus owners of the permit holder used to perform 2 single trips per day. With the revision of the reciprocity arrangement the necessity of granting an additional permit arose. Petitioner's case is that he applied for grant of a permit on this route and his application was published by the Regional Transport Authority for inviting objections by its resolution dated 6-11-63. THE applications of (1) Radhey Shyam Banwarilal, (2) Ramanlal Chunnilal and (3) respondent Umerdaraz were also published on the same day as that of the petitioner. Prior to this four other applicants, that is, (1) Bapatali (2), Messrs Poddar Brothers (3), Masand Transport Company and (4) Shukla Transport Company had also applied for grant of permits and their applications too were published vide Regional Transport Authority's resolution dated llth/12th September, 1963. Against these applications respondent No. 3 Jhalawar Transport Service, being an existing operator, filed objections. In the notifications publishing the new applications it was said by the Regional Transport Authority, that the time, date and place of the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority, in which these applications along with the objections would be considered, would be notified later on. Petitioner proceeds to say that although he was awaiting such a notification for the holding of the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority, he was surprised to find on or about 25-1-67 that the Regional Transport Authority, Kota had granted a permit to respondent No. 2 Umerdaraz on the route in question. THEreafter the petitioner started making enquiries from the Regional Transport Authority's office and, according to him, he was informed that the Regional Transport Authority had considered the case for grant of permits on the Jhalawar, Soyat route in its meeting held on 10th/11th January, 1967. Coming to know of this the petitioner applied for a copy of the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority on 30-1-67 and he obtained the copy on 4-8-67 and then presented the present writ petition on 10-8-67.

(3.) IT is not a case where the order of the Regional Transport Authority can be said to be altogether null and void or nonest. At best it is voidable against the applicant if it be taken that he was not given notice of the hearing before the Regional Transport Authority. In a case of the kind where an order of the authority is not wholly void but one which is voidable at the option of the party, the conduct of the party can be taken into consideration. After a permit is obtained by a party and a bus is put on a route it is common knowledge that all the concerning rival parties come to know of grant of such permits. Thereafter it is expected that if one has any grievance, then that should be ventilated by appropriate proceedings with promptitude. In view of these features I am satisfied that it is not a case where the discretion of the Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution should be exercised in favour of the party inspite of his not having availed of the alternative remedy of an appeal before the Tribunal.