DEEP SINGH Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, BIKANER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Deep Singh who is questioning the validity of two resolutions of the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner Nos. 85 and 115 granting permits in favour of respondents Nos. 3 to 6 on Bikaner-Salasar route. He has also prayed for quashing an appellate order of the Transport Appellate Authority affirming the resolution no. 85. Resolution No. 115 was for fixing the limit of permits over the route. The relevant facts are briefly these:-

(2.) The petitioner holds a non-temporary stage carriage permit on the Bikaner Salasar via Nokaha Sujangarh route. At a meeting held on 7/8/9-10.58, the Regional Transport Authority considered the question of opening the route Bikaner-Salasar and fixed the limit for permits at 12. The petitioner and all others were then granted permits on the route. The petitioner proceeds proceeds to say that this route was over lapped by several other routes namely, Jaipur-Bikaner, Bikaner-Nokha-Sujangarh and Sujangarh-Salasar and consequently it was well served. Respondents Nos. 3 to 6 filed applications for grant of permits over the route. There were other applicants besides these respondents for grant of permits. The applications of the respondents were published for inviting objections on different dates. The petitioner claims to have filed objections against the applications of the respondents as and when they were published and this was done by him under certificates of posting. A meeting of the Regional Transport Authority was held on about 27/28.10.1965. Agenda for this meeting is said to have been published on 21.10.1965. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, the Regional Transport Authority is said to have heard the applications of the respondents for grant of permits, but no firm decision for granting the permits was taken. The petitioner however, came to know of the grant of permits to the respondents Nos. 3 to 6 and he, therefore, applied for a copy of the Regional Transport Authority's resolution. The copy was furnished to him as late as on 20.4.1966 and in the meantime three members of the Regional Transport Authority including the Chairman were transferred and had consequently ceased to hold their office as members of the Regional Transport Authority. It is alleged that at the relevant time the Regional Transport Authority consisted of -(1) Shri R, N Hawa, Chairman (2) Shri K.N. Sharma, Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department (Building and Roads), (3) Shri N.C. Datta, Deputy Inspector General Police, Bikaner Range and (4) Major Narain Singh, Member Secretary was transferred from Bikaner on or about 17.2.1965 Shri K.N. Sharma too was transferred on or about the same period. Shri R.N. Hawa had been transferred from his post of Chairman, Regional Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authority was reconstituted with Shri S.L. Agarwal as Chairman. The grievance of the petitioner is that long after Shri R.N. Hawa and other Member of the Regional Transport Authority had ceased to hold office, they started preparing the minutes of the resolution for the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority held on 27/28.10.1965. According to the petitioner, Shri Hawa noted in the resolution drafted by him that the applications were to be kept pending according to the State Transport Authority's directions. The draft resolution or minutes, whatever they be called, were sent to other members for signatures. On receipt of such draft from the ex-Chairman the ex-Members are said to have disputed the correctness of the recording of the decision saying that at the meeting it was decided to grant the permits to respondents Nos. 3 to 6. On receipt of the comments of the Ex-Member Shri R.N. Hawa, the ex-chairman, directed the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority to take action as per the directions the other two members namely, the Superintending Engineer and the Deputy Inspector General of Police. This, according to the petitioner, was wrong as these erstwhile members had deliberated on the question after they from this according to the petitioner, the limit of permits for the route was subsequently raised from 12 to 18 by resolution No. 115. Aggrieved of the grant of the permits to respondents Nos. 3 to 6 the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Transport Appellate Tribunal. At the hearing the respondents raised a preliminary objection against the maintainability of the appeal saying that the petitioner had not filed objections against the maintainability of the appeal saying that the petitioner had not filed objections against the applications of the respondents for grant of permits. This preliminary objection prevailed with the Transport Appellate Tribunal who accordingly dismissed the petitioner's appeal. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner is challenging the two resolutions of the Regional Transport Authority namely, resolutions No. 85 and 115 as also the appellate order of the Transport Appellate Tribunal.

(3.) It was contended, in the first place, that Regional Transport Authority having already fixed the limit for permits at 12 could not have granted any additional permit without first revision the limit by an independent resolution. About this it is submitted that the applications for grant of permits as well as the item relating the fixation of scope were both fixed in the same as item No. 85, the subject of revising the scope was shoen as item No. 115. According to this sequence, the petitioner urges, the Regional Transport Authority should be taken to have first dealt with the question of grant of permits, if it all, and then decided the question of scope which, according to the petitioner, was contrary to law and without jurisdiction. In the second place, it is contended that there was no proper notice of the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority. The notice, according to the petitioner should have been for one month. It is next contended that after the members of the Regional Transport Authority had ceased to be in Office they were not entitled to recorded the minutes in the manner they did. It has been pointed out that the record of the Regional Transport Authority shows a sharp difference in their opinion about the correct state of things and, therefore, the minimum that was expected of the members was to have met and then to have recorded the minutes or the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority after being fully sure of the facts. In short, according to the petitioner, there was no proper resolution of the Regional Transport Authority for granting the permits to respondents Nos. 3 to 6 were produced and there was no reason to think that such objections were not received by the Regional Transport Authority or the concerning respondents. At best something must have happened in the Office of the Regional Transport Authority. The objections may have been either abstracted by some interested party or they may were mis-placed, but the petitioner maintains, that they were undoubtedly filed under a certificate of posting.