Modi, J.—This is a writ application by Heeralal, Babulal and others under Art 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the appellate tribunal of the State Transport Authority dated the 29th January, 1958, by which the appeal of Babulal and others against a resolution of the Regional Transport Authority Jodhpur dated the 27th and 28th May, 1957, was dismissed as incompetent.

2. The material facts are these, Petitioner No. 6 Babulal was a permit-holder for plying a stage carriage on the Sojat Road, Sojat Gity,Bilara route. There is also no dispute that petitioner No. 1 Heeralal obtained a transfer of the formers permit in March, 1958. The other petitioners have also described themselves as bus operators on this route. It is, however, contended by the contesting respondents that these petitioners were not permit-holders at the relevant times and, therefore, have no locus standi to make the present application. We consider it unnecessary to enter into any further detail in respect of petitioners Nos. 2 to 5 in this connection because petitioner Babulal was certainly by a permit-holder at all relevant times, that is, up to the stage the appeal was decided by the appellate tribunal of the State Transport Authority, and Heeralal has since obtained a valid transfer of the permit from Babulal and is, therefore, Prima facie authorised to file the present application in any case. The opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5 are the permit-holders on the Ranawas, Sojat Road, Jetaran,Marwar Jn. route. On the 18th April, 1957, the last named persons applied to the Regional Transport Authority,Jodhpur,for variation of their route, Marwar Jn. Jetaran so as to permit them to go from Devli to Bilara instead of from Devli to Jetaran. This variation involved an overlapping of the route operated by Babulal for about ten miles from Atpara to Bilara. The application in due course was published in the Rajasthan Gazette,and the Regional Transport Authority sanctioned the variation by resolution No. 42 dated the 23th May, 1957. The petitioner Babulal and some other persons consequently filed an appeal before the appellate tribunal of the State Transport Authority. They also applied for a stay order and obtained it. The contesting opposite parties applied to have the stay order vacated, but his stay order was confirmed. The appeal came up for hearing before the appellate tribunal on the 29th January, 1958, and it was rejected on the ground that the appellants had failed to object before the Regional Transport Authority when the proposed diversion was published in the Rajasthan Gazette. It was further observed that the appellants had no right of appeal because under sec. 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act (No. IV) of 1939 (hereinafter called the Act), it was prerequisite that the appellants should have made an objection under sec. 57(5) of the Act. Apparently the learned members of the appellate tribunal had clause (f) of sec. 64 of the Act in view when they said this, and on the view that the appeal was incompetent, the tribunal refused to go into the merits of the case and disposed of the appeal as incompetent. It is this order which is being challenged before us in this writ application.

3. The question for determination therefore is whether the order of the Regional Transport Authority varying the route in a case like the present was and is appealable to the appellate tribunal under any of the clauses of sec. 64 of the Act. This point came up for consideration before a Full Bench of this Court in Jairamdas vs. Regional Transport Authority (1), and it was held that a rival permit holder had a right of appeal against an order varying the conditions of his permit (and the variation in the area of the permit was held to be one such condition) under clause (b) of sec.64 of the Act, as such variation was likely to affect his interest and he would, therefore, be aggrieved by it. It was indeed pointed out that ordinarily and in the vast majority of cases, it is

Click Here to Read the rest of this document