SHYAM SUNDER AZAD Vs. TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE subject -matter of the present writ petition is a resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur dated 6 -3 -69 granting a non -temporary stage carriage permit to respondent No. 3 Smt. Shakuntla Devi on Bharatpur -Govindgarh route as also the appellate order of the Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 28 -6 -69 granting further extension to Smt. Shakuntla Devi for obtaining the permit. The relevant facts are briefly these: - -

(2.) THE petitioner is an operator on Bharatpur -Deeg -Nagar route which is an 'A' class route, 35 miles in length. The route Bharatpur -Govindgarh over which permit was ordered to be granted to respondent No. 3 overlaps this route in part. It appears from the map placed on record, Annexure P/1, that Bharatpur is the common terminus of the two routes. Between Bharatpur and Nagar which is at a distance of 35 miles, there are two important towns, Kumer and Deeg. This is the route on which the petitioner is plying his bus. From Nagar one comes to Jaluki which is at a distance of 10 miles from Nagar. Jaluki is a focal point where three roads meet. One road goas to Laxmangarh towards the south which is at a distance of 9 miles from Jaluki. The other road goes to Alwar which is at a distance of 23 miles. The third road goes to Govindgarh which is on the opposite direction to Laxmangarh. The distance between Jaluki and Govindgarh is 4 miles. This means that respondent No. 3 applied for the longer route upto Govindgarh which completely overlapped the petitioner's route Bharatpur -Deeg -Nagar.

(3.) THE writ petition has been opposed by Smt. Shakuntla Devi. It is denied by her that the Regional Transport Authority could not have extended the time for furnishing the registration number of the vehicle. In the alternative it is urged that the question of availing of the extension granted by the Regional Transport Authority was academic as, in fact, it was not availed of. It is maintained that the appeal before the Transport Appellate Tribunal was maintainable and the Transport Appellate Tribunal was entitled to extend the period for putting in the vehicle while accepting the appeal. It was denied that the petitioner had filed any objections against the respondent's application for grant of a permit. It was stated that the application of the petitioner was published on 6 -4 -67 and no objections were filed against that application. It was by mistake that the application was published for the second time in July, 1967 and, therefore, according to the respondent, it did not confer any fresh right on any person to file objections as the application of the respondent had been dealt with on the footing of the first publication and against that no objections had been filed. In the circumstances it was submitted that the petitioner having not filed any objections against the application was not entitled to maintain the writ petition. It was urged that it was the duty of the petitioner to have filed the objections before the Regional Transport Authority and to have taken the objection which he is now urging before this Court that without first fixing the limit for permits under Section 47 (3) of the Act the Regional Transport Authority could not grant any permits., The respondent also denied that the petitioner had filed any objection by registered post when the respondent's application was published for the second time on 13 -7 -67, though by mistake. Lastly, it was urged that the petitioner should have availed of the remedies provided by the statute by filing an appeal before the Transport Appellate Tribunal against the grant of the permit itself and the writ petition should not be entertained also on the ground that it was a delayed one.