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

2. The case of the five petitioners, M/s. Vijai Singh,Roormal, Nizam-uddin, M/s Jagdish Narain Om Prakash, and Hanuman Bux Pareek, leaving aside irrelevant matters, is that they along with 17 others held permits for the Jaipur—Alwar route, which were due to expire on 30th September, 1956. They applied for their renewal on or about the 11th July, 1956. The grievance of the petitioners is that instead or renewing the permits their applications for renewal were advertised in the Rajasthan Gazette of 30th August, 1956, and objections were invited. Their further grievance is that the Regional Transport Authority in its meeting, which took place on the 29th of September, 1st of October, and 5th of October, 1956, recorded a resolution that the traffic needs on this route had increased, and there should be 9 trips from each side between Jaipur and Med. It was recorded that this required 20 buses to run daily on this route, and provision had to be made for weekly holidays to the staff, for leave to the staff, for break downs, for extra traffic on account of fairs and marriages, for reserve parties etc., and, therefore, in all 30 buses should be given permits on this route in order to provide ten services daily. Of the previous bus owners, permits of 13, which included the 5 petitioners, were renewed for a period of three years. The permit of 3 were temporarily renewed pending certain enquiry against the allegations of illegal transfer of permits, and the renewal of one permit was disallowed as the permit-holder had allowed somebody else to use the permit.

3. The contention of the petitioners is that they had incurred the wrath of the R.T.A. by questioning their decision to increase the number of vehicles made by their resolution of 3rd and 4th December, 1954, by a writ petition, which was allowed by this Court and a direction was given for re-examination of the circumstances relating to an increase in the number of permits by the Appellate Authority, and that authority took into consideration the principles which were laid down in the judgment of this Court, and cancelled the permits of 10 persons, 7 of whom were previously granted permits by the R.T.A and 3 by the appellate authority. It was alleged that the R.T.A. wanted to wreak vengeance on the petitioners, and with that object had raised the number of stage carriages to be permitted on this line from 22 to 30. The Regional Transport Authority and 7 other persons, who were granted temporary permits for four months pending a fresh advertisement of the route for granting 8 more permits were made parties to the petition.

4. The R.T.A. did not file any reply, but six of the respondents have contested this petition, and it is urged on their behalf that the traffic on this route bad considerably increased since 1953, when the previous permits were granted, and as many as 125 prosecutions for overloading in the year 1955-56 had been pending, and that the R. T. A. had genuine reasons to believe that there was a need for increasing the number of trips on this route, and the decision given by them to increase the number of stage carriages from 22 to 30 was lightly made. In support of this reply 8 certified copies of judgments of Magistrates were produced, in which the driver, conductor or the owner was prosecuted for taking passengers in excess of the number permitted to be carried by the bus.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant? contended that the R. T. A. had no material before them to increase the number of stage carriages on this line, and that the number of carriages stated to be required for weekly holiday, leave, and breakdowns was far in excess of the number which may have been necessary. It was also contended that it was upto the bus owner to make arrangement in case his staff is on holiday or leave, or the bus had a break-down, in default whereof the law provided lor his prosecution and, therefore, any increase

Click Here to Read the rest of this document