The grant of permits without fixing the limit under Section 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is not a nullity and the remedy of the aggrieved persons is to challenge the grant of permits by filing an appeal under Section 64 before the Transport Appellate Tribunal.

Judgment Jagat Narayan, J.-These two special appeals against a judgment of a learned Single Judge can conveniently be disposed of by one judgment.

2. TheRegional Transport Authority, Jaipur, formed a route called Jaipur-Sikar amalgamated route consisting of numerous routes in 1955 and granted 56 permits on this route. Some of the unsuccessful applicants filed appeals and the Transport Appellate Tribunal granted 6 more permits on this route in 1956. There were thus 62 permits” on this route. Seven of the permit-holders ceased to ply their vehicles on this route and since the year 1962 or near about only 55 buses had been running on it.

3. On 21-1-1965 the Regional Transport Authority published a general notification (Annexure 2) expressing an intention to increase the limit of permits on all routes within the Jaipur Region and invited objections. The operators of the Jaipur-Sikar amalgamated route filed objections. But no decision was taken on these objections and the limit was not revised at that time.

4. Applications were filed for grant of fresh permits on the Jaipur-Sikar amalgamated route from time to time. The following applications were published on the dates mentioned against each:-1 Abdul Aziz . 29-9-1966

2. Han Narain .. .. 23-2-1967

3. T. G. Soni . . . . 9-3-1967

4. Radhey Shyam Goel . 10-6-1985

5. Moharnmad Yusuf .. 7-9-1967 Several other persons applied for grant of permit? and their applications were also published, but it is not necessary to give the dates of their publication.

5. TheseExplications were considered at a meeting or the Regional Transport Authority on 19-10-1937 and 5 permits were granted to the above-named 5 persons. Kanhaiyalal., an existing operator on the Jaipur-Sikar amalgamated route, who had filed an objection against the grant of fresh permits on this route, filed S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 638 of 1967 (Raj.) against the grant of permits to the above five persons. He did not file any appeal to the Transport Appellate Tribunal against the grant of permits

6. TheRegional Transport Authority had not passed any order under Section 47 (3) fixing the limit of permits to be granted on this route before granting the above 5 permits. On this ground the learned Single Judge held that the grant of permits by the Regional Transport Authority was a nullity and he entertained Kanhaiyalal’s writ petition even though he had not availed of the alternative remedy by way of filing an appeal. He quashed the permits granted to the above 5 persons. During the pendency of the writ petition the Regional Transport Authority passed an order under Section 47 (3) fixing the limit of permits at 60. The learned Single Judge took this fact into consideration and directed the Regional Transport Authority to reconsider the applications of the 5 persons whose permits had been quashed by him along with the applications of all other applicants which might be ripe for consideration, after fixing a proper agenda.

7. Against the above judgment Han Narain has filed Special Appeal No. 92 of 1869. The first contention on his behalf is that the Regional Transport Authority should be deemed to have fixed 62 as the limit of permits under Section 47 (3) and it was not necessary for the Regional Transport Authority to take a fresh decision while filling in the seven vacancies on the route. The second contention is that the grant of permits to the 5 persons was not a nullity and the writ petition of Kanhaiya Lal should not have been entertained by the learned Single Judge as he had not filed an appeal against the order before the Transport Appellate Tribunal.

8. In Smt. Shakuntala Devi vs. T. A. T. Jaipur Civil Special Appeal No. 113 of 1969, D/ 28-1-197 (Raj.), we have held that even if permits are granted on a new route by the Regional Transport Authority without fixing the limit under Section 47 (3), the grant of permits is not a nullity and the remedy of the aggrieved persons is to challenge the grant of permits by filing an appeal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document