MOHAMMAD Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Mohammad Safi and by it he questions the validity of a resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur, dated 8/11-5-1967 granting permits one each to respondents Nos. 2 to 16 on Chittorgarh-Bundi via Bijolia-Mandalgarh route. The petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction or order against the respondents.

(2.) THE relevant facts appearing in the writ petition are briefly these. THE petitioner is an existing operator over the route in question which is 123 miles long-A Class route. A part of this route lies in Udaipur region while another part lies in the Kota Region. THE petitioner is plying his vehicle on this route in rotation with other permit holders. This route was overlapped by several other routes. In November 1964, the R. T. A. decided to revise the scope of permits over this route under 47 (1) (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) and published a notification in the Gazette dated the 12th November, 1964, inviting objections from the existing operators regarding the proposed revision of scope. It was stated in the notification that R. T. A, proposed to raise the scope from 6 to 18. THE existing operators submitted their objections against the proposed increase of scope and this matter came up for consideration at the meeting of the R. T. A. held on the 31st May and 1st June, 1965. THE R. T. A. after hearing the objections of the existing operators decided to raise the maximum number of permits on the route to 12 On the footing that each vehicle should get 40 miles of operational milage on an average each day. Against this resolution the petitioner made a revision application before S. T. A. but unfortunately for him, the State Transport Authority did not decide the revision application even up to the date of the filing of the present writ petition. Indeed, according to the petitioner, no meeting of the S. T. A. had taken place and at the time the writ petition was filed, the S. T. A. was not functioning for want of a Chairman. In the meantime, the S. T. A. had revised the basis for fixation of the scope from 40 miles route milage per day to 80 miles route milage per day and all the Regional Transport Authority were directed to bear this in mind while determining the scope of any route. Some applications for grant of permits over the route had been filed and by its notification dated the 5th November, 1966, published in the Rajasthan Gazette of the 14th November, 1966, the R. T. A. had notified that these applications would be considered at the R. T. A's meeting to be held on 15/16/17-12-1966. THE petitioner in the circumstances felt that the remedy of revision under sec. 64a of the Act was not being made available to him and yet the R. T. A. was determined to grant more permits over the route and therefore he filed a writ petition in this Court which was No. 42 of 1967 praying that the resolution of the R. T. A. Udaipur dated the 31st May/1st June, 1965 (Annexure 1) be quashed and the R. T. A. be restrained from granting fresh permits on the route till the final determination of the scope in the light of the latest directions of the S. T. A. regarding the minimum operational route milage. THE writ petition was admitted and the stay application that was also moved along with it came up for orders on the 21st January 1967, and this Court after hearing learned counsel observed in its order of that date that he should move the R. T. A. itself to prefix the scope in the light of the S. T. A. 's revised instructions of the 8th September 1966 and that it should not act on the scope fixed on 31st May/lst June, 1965. After this order was passed by this Court, the petitioner approached the R. T. A. Udaipur and made an application on 23-1-1967 praying that the scope of permits on the route be refixed under sec. 47 (3) of the Act in the light of the revised instructions of the S. T. A. before granting any more permits on the route. On the 17th March, 1967, a meeting of the R. T. A. Udaipur had taken place and the matter relating to the grant of fresh permits on the route was included in the agenda; but the petitioner's application for prefixing the scope was not included in the agenda. However, the R. T. A. did not grant any fresh permits on the route. THE petitioner proceeds to say that thereafter there was no notification for holding the next meeting of the R. T. A. published in the gazette nor was the petitioner or the other existing operators of the route intimated of any date of the next meeting of the R. T. A. But in spite of it, on the 12th April, 1967, the meeting of the R. T. A. was held at Udaipur. As the petitioner and some others had come to know of that meeting, they appeared at the meeting and the version of the petitioner regarding the events at the meeting was that some accusations were made against the Chairman himself and there was an uproar at the meeting which caused disturbance and confusion, and, therefore, the meeting was abandoned. THE petitioner states that after that date, no notice of any fresh meeting was issued in the Rajasthan gazette but unfortunately for him, the petitioner found that between 8th and 12th May, 1967, meeting of the R. T. A. purported to have been held at Jaipur and at that meeting the impugned resolution (annexure 5) is said to have been passed. By this resolution, 14 fresh permits on the route had been granted and this was done without consideration of the petitioner's application dated the 23rd January, 1967, praying for re-fixation of scope in the light of the revised directions of the S. T. A. This resolution is attacked on a number of grounds.

(3.) THE question arises whether the R. T. A. has acted on a correct basis. If the very basis is found to be wrong, then the foundation for the decision of the R. T. A. fixing the scope will be completely lacking.