Bapna, J.—This is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. The Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur Region, invited applications for certain routes by a notification published in the Rajasthan Gazette of 15th January, 1952, and again on 14th March, 1953. One of the routes, for which applications for stage carriage were invited, was the Jaipur-Gangapur route. 96 persons applied for stage carriage permits on this route. The Regional Transport Authority by its resolution dated 6th August, 1953, granted 19 permits to 17 persons, and rejected the rest of the applications. Dulichand, Anand Ram Kabra, Amiruddin, Maya Betwal. Mahadeo Ghanshyam and Bansilal Govind Sahai filed six separate appeals to the Appellate Authority under sec. 64, clause (a) of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, urging that the refusal of permits to them by the Regional Transport Authority was erroneous and that a permit for one stage carriage should be granted to each one of them. By two judgments of 8th May, 1954, all the six appeals were accepted and each one of the appellants was granted a permit for one stage carriage. Sardar Kulwant Singh. Rahimuddin, and Asan Dass, three of the 17 persons, who were granted permits by the Regional Transport Authority, have filed this petition under Arts. 226and227 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the order of the Appellate Authority to grant permits to six persons aforesaid, who are respondents Nos. 3 to 8 in this petition.

3. It is contended that—

(1) the grant of permits was in disregard of the provisions of secs. 47 and 48 of Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 90 of the Rules made under the Act, inasmuch as according to the time-table framed by the Regional Transport Authority 13 buses lie idle every day and it would be a national waste, if more permits were granted which would involve purchase and maintenance of extra buses with no advantage to anybody;

(2) the Appellate Authority did not apply its mind to the arguments advanced by either side, but if the order of the Appellate Authority meant wholesale acceptance of the arguments advanced by the non-petitioners, the order of the Appel-late Authority was manifestly erroneous, inasmuch as certain considerations, which would appear to have weighed with the Appellate Authority should have been ruled out.

4. According to the scheme of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act, sec. 46 provides for an application to be made for a permit to use a motor vehicle as a stage carriage. The application is to contain the following particulars—

(a) the type and seating capacity of the vehicle in respect of which the application is made;

(b) the route or routes on which or the area within which it is intended to use the vehicle;

(c) the time-table, if any, of the service to be provided; and

(d) such other matters as may be prescribed.

Sec. 47 indicates the matters to be considered by the Regional Transport Authority in deciding whether to grant or refuse a stage carriage permit, to it—

(a) the interest of the public generally;

(b) the advantage to the public of the service to be provided, including the saying of time likely to be effected thereby and any convenience arising from journeys not being broken;

(c) the adequacy of existing road passengers transport service between the places to be served, the fares charged by those services and the effect upon those services of the service proposed;

(d) the benefit to any particular locality or localities likely to be afforded by the service;

(e) the operation by the applicant of other transport service and in particular of unremunerative services in conjunction with remunerative services; and

(f) the condition of the route included in the proposed route or routes.

It is further provided that the Regional Trans-port Authority shall also take into consideration any representation made by persons already providing road transport facilities along or near the proposed route or routes or by any local authority or police authority with whose j

Click Here to Read the rest of this document