Back
Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench
Ranawat & Dave, JJ.
Khandari Babu - Appellant
Versus
Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur - Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.540 of 1952
Decided On : December 15, 1952
The Regional Transport Authority, while exercising its powers of issuing a temporary as well as non-temporary permits is a quasi judicial authority and if that authority acts without jurisdiction or refuses to act when it has got jurisdiction under the law, or acts illegally or with material irregularity, a writ of certiorary may lie against it.
Whether in a given case there is a particular temporary need or not it is for the Regional Transport Authority to decide and the High Court would not interfere unless the decision of the Authority is mala fide or is in utter disregard of the provisions of law. The judgment of the Regional Transport Authority on this point may or may not be correct in the opinion of the High Court but it would not be entitled to interfere simply because the High Court may take a different view from the one adopted by the Regional Transport Authority.
A permanent need may also under certain given circumstances, give rise to the existence of a particular temporary need. For instance, if a particular bus, which is to run on a particular route at given times, goes out of order, then during that interval the need may be a particular temporary need, even though that is simply to keep the continuous permanent need fulfilled. Similarly, there may be increase of traffic on a particular route, and the authority may take steps to grant non-temporary permsits for the plying of more vehicles as stage carriages on that route, and in the meantime, if the need is considered immediate, take action to issue temporary permits for a period not exceeding four months. The need in such a case may be a non-temporary need, but till arrangement can be made to meet it, action may be called for to meet the temporary exigency of increase in traffic. Till suitable arrangements are made for grant of non-temporary permits, the arrangement for issue of temporary permits would be to meet a temporary need, and it would also be particular, because that particular want shall be met by grant of such temporary permits which it is not possible to meet by non-temporary permits. (Paras 6 and 7)
2. Briefly the case of the petitioner is that he owns bus No. RJL 529, and holds a permit for plying it on Kotah-Deikhera-Khanpur route in Kotah and Jhalawar districts granted to him by the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur Region, that the petitioner, after getting his permit for plying stage carriage, spent about Rs. 1200/- in the repairing of the route in order to make it motorable, that the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur Region, in complete disregard of the provisions of sec. 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act on 3rd of October, 1952, granted a temporary permit to Messrs. Ratan Singh Awat Ram, who are opposite party No. 2, which is to remain valid up to the 31st of December 1952, that the temporary permit of opposite party No. 2 is practically for the route as that of the petitioners permit, that the petitioner has been put to a considerable loss on account of the grant of temporary permit in favour of the opposite party No. 2, and that the order of the Regional Transport Authority granting a temporary permit in disregard of the provisions of sec. 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act is illegal. The petitioner prays that an appropriate writ, or direction be issued setting aside the temporary permit issued by the opposite party No. 1, and restraining the opposite party No. 2 from plying his bus on Kotah-Khanpur route.
3. A reply has been filed on behalf of the Regional Transport Authority, and it is admitted that the petitioner holds a valid permit for plying his bus on Kotah-Deikhera-Khanpur route. It is further stated that a temporary permit was granted to the opposite party No. 2 in order to meet the necessity of the public at large, as one bus was not considered sufficient to meet the need of the traffic on the route covered by the permit of the petitioner. The action of the Regional Transport Authority in this behalf was based on the recommendation of the Gram Panchayats of that locality, e.g., Dhulet Kanwas & Awa, and of one of the non-official members of the Regional Transport Authority. At the time the question of issuing temporary permit was considered by the Regional Transport Authority, the petitioner was also present, and he had opposed the proposed action. Necessary steps for the grant of a non-temporary permit were taken, and in the meantime, in order to give relief to the travelling public, a temporary permit was issued. The action of the Regional Transport Authority in so acting was within the scope of their powers. The Regional Transport Authority, in order to further safeguard the interests of the petitioner, imposed restrictions on the temporary permit that the opposite party No. 2 would make only one trip per day, and would start his bus after the petitioners bus had left the station. By these conditions the opposite party No. 2 was made to carry only such passengers as could not travel by the bus of the petitioner. The petitioner, if he had felt aggrieved from the order of the Regional Transport Authority, should have gone in appeal, and as other remedy was open to him, he is not entitled to any relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also stated in the reply that the petitioner came to court after much delay.
4. The reply of Messrs. Ratan Singh Awat Ram, opposite party No. 2, is almost on the same lines as that of the Regional Transport Authority.
5. The learned counsel of the petitioner in his arguments has vehemently urged that there was no particular temporary need in the meaning of sec. 62 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act to entitle the Regional Transport Authority to issue a temporary permit in favour of the opposite party No. 2 on the route which was covered by the permit of the petitioner. In support of this argument, Sri Rama Vilas Service Ltd. vs. The Road Traffic Boa
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
