Ranawat, J.—This is an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The case of the petitioner is as follows. The petitioner, Shiv Narain Agarwal, was a shareholder of the Dholpur Motor Transport Association, and under the name of the Association, he had a permit to ply a bus No. M.U.D.H. 113 on the Dholpur-Agra route upto the 31st of January, 1952. Subsequently that permit was cancelled on account of the bad condition of the motor bus No. M.U.D.H. 113. The petitioner then applied for substituting a new bus in place of the old bus M.U.D.H, 113, and a new permit, which was valid upto 30th of November, 1951 was granted to him for Bus No. M.U.D.H. 296, which was subsequently numbered as RJ.D. 51. In the meantime, the Motor Vehicles Act (Act No. IV of 1939) was adapted in Rajasthan by the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Act (Adaptation) Ordinance (No. XIV of 1950) on the 24th of January, 1950. A notification was then issued by the Regional Transport Authority of Jaipur, which was published in the Gazette of 19th May, 1951 by which the existing motor operators injaipur region were asked to file their petitions for permits to ply buses before the 30th of May, 1951, and other persons were also invited to file their petitions for permits to ply buses, but no date was specified in their case. The petitioner, it is said, filed his application, in response to the aforesaid notification, in the office of the Regional Transport Authority. After that a second notification was issued by the Rajasthan State Transport Authority which was published in the Gazette of 7th July, 1951, and by this notification applications were invited for plying buses on certain specified routes in which Dholpur-Agra route was also mentioned. The petitioner, as he had already filed an application in response to the previous notification, did not think it necessary to file a fresh petition under the new notification and certain other persons lodged their petitions for permits to ply buses on the Dholpur-Agra route. The Regional Transport Authority,after publishing the petitions, which were filed under the second notification relating to the Dholpur-Agra route, granted six permits to certain persons, whose names have been specified in the petition, and out of whom the Dholpur Cooperative Transport and Multipurposes Union Limited, Dholpur, has been impleaded as one of the parties. No action, it is said, was taken on the petition filed by the peti-tioner for a permit to ply his bus No. RJ.D. 51. As in accordance with an understanding between the State of Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan only six permits can be granted by the Regional Transport Authority of Jaipur for plying buses on the Dholpur-Agra route, there was left no chance for the issue of a permit in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner further stated that in spite of his repeated requests, no action was taken by the Regional Transport Authority to dispose of his application. He, therefore, had no alternative but to come to this Court. He prays that an appropriate writ or direction may be issued to the Regional Transport Authority to publish, and to take proceedings according to law 0.1 his application as required by sec. 57 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

3. On behalf of the Regional Transport Authority a reply was filed, and it was admitted that the petitioner filed an application in response to the first application, but it was denied that the petitioner made any demand for publication of his petition, as required by sec. 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was also said that the petition was pending the consideration of the Regional Transport Authority, and would be disposed of in due course. As the plea of the petitioner is that his application has been impliedly rejected by the Regional Transport Authority, and six permits had been issued to others, the petitioner should have recourse to his right of appeal under sec. 64 rather than come to this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. A furt

Click Here to Read the rest of this document