Wanchoo, C. J.—The following three points have been referred to this Full Bench for answer—

(1) Whether the following condition laid down by sec. 47(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 is ultra vires Art. 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution of India—

"the effect upon those services of the service proposed."

(2) Whether in view of Rule 90 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1951, the Transport Authority is under a duty to so fix the time-table as to allow every stage carriage holding a permit on a particular route to run thereon daily, and whether the fixing of a time-table and allowing the stage carriage to run by rotation on some days of the month only is in contravention of the said Rules?

(3) Whether granting of a few more permits on a route on which the existing stage carriage are not running daily but only by rotation is by itself sufficient to justify this Court to quash the order of the Regional Transport or Appellate Authority by a writ: of certiorari on the ground of the order being erroneous on its face and repugnant to the condition regarding the adequacy of existing road passenger transport services between the place to be served, laid down by clause (c) of sec. 47(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act?

2. Before we consider these points one by one, we should like to give the facts briefly which led to the writ application in which this reference has been made. These facts are-Malik Ram and Jagdish Narain applicants are bus operators on the Jaipur-Alwar route, and ply stage carriages on hire. The Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur, granted 27 permits for plying stage carriages on hire on this route in August, 1953. After granting these permits, the Regional Transport Authority fixed the rotation according to which these 27 bus-operators would work. This was necessary as only five trips (both ways) were required every day on this route, the distance being about 90 miles. Five buses used to ply one way, and five the other way every day and the turn of each bus came once in two or three days. After the grant of the 27 permits, five permit-holders dropped out and eventually only 22 stage carriages plied on the Jaipur-Alwar route. When this happened the Regional Transport Authority granted three temporary permits to three other persons on the ground that five of the original permit-holders and dropped out. Later, applications were invited for one more permit in 1934; but, in December, 1954, the Regional Transport Authority granted eight permits, thus bringing the total number of buses on this route to 30. Three other persons had applied for permits, but their applications had been refused. They went in appeal to the Appellate Authority, and that Authority granted permits to them also. The number of permits thus granted on this route came to 33; but as one of the persons to whom permit was granted was dead, the real number was 32.

3. Thereupon, Malik Ram and Jagdish Narain applied to this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution, and their case was that no new permit should have been granted as there were sufficient number of buses available to carry out the number of trips even after five buses had fallen off. It may be mentioned that originally there were only five trips fixed on this route; but when the Regional Transport Authority decided to grant eight more permits, it took the view that a sixth trip was necessary. In fact, however, the sixth trip was not actually allowed till Nov., 1955.

4. The application was opposed by those to whom permits had been granted. When the matter came up before a Division Bench of this Court, it was thought necessary to refer these three points, which arose during the course of arguments before the Division Bench, to a Full Bench, as they raised questions of considerable importance. We shall now take these points one by one.

5. The first point relates to the validity of a certain portion of sec. 47(1)(c) which reads as follows—

"A Regional Transport Authority shall, in deciding whether to grant or re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document