SARJOO PROSAD, C. J. — The petitioner Shyam Singh has moved for an appropriate writ against the Regional Transport authority, Udaipur, restraining the said Authority from considering applications for grant of a permit on the Udaipur—Bhilwara route without duly publishing the petitioners application dated 6th October, 1958, and also for directing the said respondent to publish the application aforesaid in due course as required by sec. 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act No. IV of 1939—hereinafter called the Act).

2. The facts may be briefly stated. The Regional Transport Authority invited applications for five stage carriage permits on the aforesaid rule by a notification published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated 7th of November, 1957. The petitioner along with others also put in an application for a permit on that route on the 21st of November, 1957. Out of the applications received it appears that the Regional Transport Authority published 113 applications, including that of the petitioner, in the Rajpatra dated 27th March, 1958 and thereafter by separate resolutions dated 15/16th May, 1958, permits were granted to some applicants and the application of the petitioner as also of others were dismissed. One Beharilal, Chairman of the Taxi Motor Association, Kankroli, had objected that one of his applications in his own name and two applications in the name of the Taxi Motor Association had not been published; and therefore, the Transport Authority could not validly consider any of the other applications for permits; but this contention was over-ruled. Against that order Behari Lal and the Motor Association, Kankroli, moved for a writ in this court, being writ petition No.85 of 1958. The petition was accepted and an appropriate writ was issued. The direction was that the Transport Authority was bound to publish all the applications before taking into consideration any of them for grant of permit and the resolutions passed by the Regional Transport Authority granting permits, or rejecting applications were, therefore, quashed. The result was that in the matter of publication of the applications received the Transport Authority had to observe the above mandate and directions of this court.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another application for permit on the same route before the Transport Authority on 6th October, 1958, after complying with the requisite formalities; and the Transport Authority in its turn invited more applications by a notification published in the Rajpatra of 22nd January, 1959. In pursuance of that notification the petitioner again presented an application for permit on 10th February, 1959. It is not disputed that all the above applications were in order. This time unfortunately again the Regional Transport Authority fell into the same error which it had committed earlier. It published 245 applications in the Rajpatra dated 23rd April, 1959; but the application of the petitioner dated 10th February, 1959, was alone published leaving aside his previous applications. The petitioner then submitted a representation to the Transport Authority specifically pointing out that his other applications had not been published and that the Transport Authority could not proceed to consider the applications for grant of permit without duly complying with the requirement of the law on the point. No order appears to have been passed on the said representation. The petitioner was not alone aggrieved in the matter but there appear to be certain other applicants also who suffered a similar fate, Behari Lal being one of them This person again carried the matter to this court and presented an application for writ petition No. 195 of 1959 on the ground that the earlier applications had not been duly published and hence the Transport Authority could not proceed to consider the applications for grant of permit. This petition was again accepted by this Court on the 18th December, 1959, and the Assistant Government Advocate on beh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document