GENERAL MOTOR BUS SERVICEJAIPUR Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITYJAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by Messrs. General Motor Bus Service, Jaipur, against the Regional Transport Authority and the State Transport Authority, Rajas than,

(2.) The facts, which have given rise to this petition, are these. The petitioner applied for grant of four temporary permits for plying stage carriages between Jaipur and Kotah on 25th November, 1954, and for grant of four non-temporary permits on the same route on 3rd December, 1954. It may be mentioned that there is no direct service between, Kotah and Jaipur so far. Buses ply between Kotah and Deoli and Deoli and Jaipur. The R. T. A. did not publish the applications for grant of non-temporary permits on account of a direction issued by the S. T. A by its resolution dated 24th January, 1955, asking the R. T. A. to open the Jaipur-Kotah route, on a temporary basis to assess the traffic potentiality. It authorised the. R. T. A, to issue two temporary permits along the route. The R. T. A., however, maintained that as there was no temporary need, a temporary permit could not be issued, and invited applications for grant of "non-temporary permits, by resolution dated 27, 28/29th June, 1955. In response to the invitation, the petitioner applied for the grant of six non-temporary permits to it on 22nd August, 1955. These applications were published, but no decision was taken on them by the R. T. A. as required by Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The reason was that the S. T. A. passed a resolution on 7th September, 1955, directing the R. T. A., Jaipur, not to issue non-temporary permits along the route. The applications of the petitioner have not yet been decided by the R. T. A., Jaipur. It is prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued to the R. T. A. directing it to decide the applications in accordance with the provisions of Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(3.) So far as the application of the petitioner for grant of temporary permits is concerned, it is conceded on behalf of the petitioner that such permits cannot be granted as there is no temporary need. The) petition is only pressed with regard to the grant of permanent permits.