Back
1969 Supreme(Raj) 175
Rajasthan High Court
KAN SINGH
Shyam Sunder Azad - Appellant
Versus
Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur - Respondent
Civil Writ Petn. No. 1229 of 1969
Decided On : 10/24/1969
R.R. Vyas, for Petitioner; J.P. Jain and R.K. Rastogi, (for Nos. 1 and 2) and J.S. Rastogi, (for No. 3), for Respondents.
The RTA cannot grant non-temporary stage carriage permits over a new route without fixing the limit for permits thereof under Section 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - Section 47(3) - Regional Transport Authority (RTA) - Grant of non-temporary stage carriage permit - Fixation of limit for permits - Jurisdiction - Appeal - Maintainability.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an operator on a route, challenged the grant of a non-temporary stage carriage permit to respondent No. 3 by the RTA on the ground that the RTA had acted without jurisdiction as it had not fixed the scope or limit for permits over the route under Section 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (the Act). The petitioner also challenged the maintainability of the appeal filed by respondent No. 3 before the Transport Appellate Tribunal (TAT) against the RTA's order imposing a condition that the permit would be automatically cancelled if the grantee failed to furnish the registration number of the vehicle within a specified time.
Finding of the Court:
1. The RTA had acted without jurisdiction in granting the permit without first fixing the limit for permits under Section 47(3) of the Act. 2. The appeal filed by respondent No. 3 before the TAT was not maintainable as the imposition of the condition regarding the furnishing of the registration number of the vehicle within the time allowed and the grant coming to an end in the event of non-compliance of that condition was not covered by any of the clauses of Section 64 of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the RTA could have granted the permit without first determining the scope or limit for permits under Section 47(3) of the Act for the route? 2. Whether the writ petitioner had disentitled himself from seeking the remedy of a writ on account of his not availing the alternative remedy of an appeal under the statute and that by first filing the objections against the respondent's application? 3. Whether the appeal before the TAT was maintainable? 4. Whether the writ petition should be dismissed on the ground of delay?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 47(3) of the Act requires the RTA to limit the number of stage carriage permits that may be granted in a route having regard to the matters mentioned in sub-section (1) of that section. The determination as to the number of stage carriages required on a route should be done at a stage anterior to that of entertaining applications for stage carriage permits. 2. The petitioner had not disentitled himself from seeking the remedy of a writ as there was a patent lack of jurisdiction in the RTA in granting the permit without first fixing the limit for permits under Section 47(3) of the Act. 3. The appeal before the TAT was not maintainable as the imposition of the condition regarding the furnishing of the registration number of the vehicle within the time allowed and the grant coming to an end in the event of non-compliance of that condition was not covered by any of the clauses of Section 64 of the Act. 4. The writ petition was not liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay as the petitioner had filed the petition within three months of coming to know of the order in favor of respondent No. 3.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the order of the TAT and the permit granted to respondent No. 3 were set aside, and respondent No. 3 was restrained from availing of the permit.
ORDER :- 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 goes 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.
I may read here the impugned resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur :
"Item No. 9/13 Bharatpur-Govindgarh. Resol. No. 31 Smt. Shakuntla Devi-present by Shri M. K. Khanna, counsel. Objectors.
1. Shri H. C. Mangal, for R. S. R. T. C. Present.
2. Shri Fasihuddin, counsel for AlwarKekri amalgamated route operators-Present.
Heard the parties. This is a new route and 'A' Class in nature. The opening of this route will connect an important town of Alwar district namely Govindgarh with Bharatpur the district headquarter of Bharatpur District. The opening of the route will also provide facility to the travelling public of the villages falling enroute.
Thus on an experimental basis, one S. C. permit for three years with one return service is hereby granted to Smt. Shakuntla Devi.
The applicant will put up her vehicle of the prescribed model for the 'A' Class route within 30 days from today otherwise this grant shall stand cancelled automatically.
It is also decided that the scope on this route will be fixed after six months as by that time we will be able to know the exact position of the traffic potentiality.
Resolved accordingly.
Announced."
It appears that Smt. Shakuntla Devi did not have the ready bus and was not in a position to give the registration number thereof within the period of 30 days allowed by the Regional Transport Authority. On 2-4-69 Smt. Shakuntla Devi put in an application before the Regional Transport Authority to grant her an extension of time for obtaining the vehicle. The Regional Transport Authority granted this extension for 15 days, but before the expiry of 15 days Smt. Shankuntla Devi lodged an appeal before the Transport Appellate Tribunal making grievance of the short time allowed to her for putting in the vehicle. The appeal came to be heard and disposed of by the Transport Appellate Tribunal on 28-6-69. The Transport Appellate Tribunal accepted the appeal and it set aside that part of the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur dated 6-3-69 by which it was laid down that the grantee shall employ the vehicle of the prescribed model within 30 days, failing which the permit would automatically stand cancelled. The Transport Appellate Tribunal directed that the grantee shall be entitled to put in the vehicle within a period of 30 days from the date of its order failing which the grant shall stand automatically cancelled.
The petitioner submits that he was surprised to find
