Back
Rajasthan High Court, Full Bench
Bhandari, Jagat Narayan & Chhangani, JJ.
Jagdish Prasad - Appellant
Versus
The Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan - Respondents
F.B. Reference No. 1 of 1965
Decided On : November 15, 1965
Per Chhangani, J.—The initial act of making an offer under Sec. 68(d) and Rule 9(e) to displaced operators is an administrative act. The offer at that stage is tentative and without prejudice to the rights of existing operators. The Regional Transport Authority at a later stage after considering the representations, if received from the existing operators, may grant permit for alternative route or may reject it. The eventual determination and grant of permit will be a quasi-judicial function but the initial offer in the very nature of things is an administrative act.
But in issuing the directions the Transport Authority did not directly enjoin upon the Regional Transport Authority to make offers to the displaced persons. On the other hand,the directions proceed from the commencement to restrain the Regional Transport Authorities from granting fresh stage carriage permits on A class routes in the respective regions in order to offer alternative routes to the displaced persons in view of the nationalisation of a number of routes in the State. The Regional Transport Authorities are required to desist from granting permits irrespective of the fact whether the offers have been made and are pending or have yet to be made in future. The function of the Regional Transport Authority in the matter of grant of fresh permits are admittedly quasi-judicial functions and the directions so worded do constitute interference with the exercise of quasi-judicial functions. Similarly, he first proviso directs that the Regional Transport Authorities while considering the cases of the displaced operators and other interested operators should give due preference to the displaced as well as would be displaced operators. This is also an interference with the exercise of quasi-judicial functions of the Regional Transport Authorities. In this view of the matter, these directions so widely worded are hit by the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Raja Gopala Naidu vs. Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras and deserve to be declared invalid. (Paras 23 & 26)
Per Jagat Narayan, J.—As nothing contained in the Motor Vehicles Act or the Rules framed thereunder lays down that the Regional Transport Authority is bound to postpone the consideration of an application for grant of a fresh permit under sec. 46 till all displaced operators of the region have been granted alternative permits, this direction fetters the judicial discretion of the Regional Transport Authority in the matter of grant of permits under Chapter IV which is a quasi-judicial matter and is thus invalid.
The direction in the second paragraph means that in case the displaced or would be displaced operators do not accept the alternative routes offered to them and there is scope for grant of further permits on the route, applications filed under sec. 46 for grant of fresh permits may be considered, but due preference should be given to the displaced as well as would be displaced operators from other regions. There is nothing in sec. 68-B or in any other provision contained in Chapter IV-A or the Rules made thereunder from which it can be inferred that in granting permits the R.T.A. is bound to give preference to displaced operators of other regions. This direction also interferes with the judicial discretion of the R.T.A. in the matter of grant of permits which is a quasi-judicial function and is thus invalid.
So far as the third paragraph of the impugned directions is concerned it only contains a statement of the law which is in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and is unobjectionable. (Paras 8, 9 & 10)
Per Bhandari, J.—The first direction is to desist from granting any fresh permit of any A Class route by any Regional Transport Authority in its region till the displaced persons or would be displaced persons are re-habilitated in due process. Had the direction been only to the extent that no fresh application should be invited by any Regional Transport Authority in respect of A Class routes in its region, the direction would have been proper, but the direction goes beyond this and prohibits any Regional Transport Authority to decide any application pending before it for grant of permit on A Class route in its region. Such a direction is invalid. The first proviso to the resolution of the State Transport Authority contains another direction and is to the effect that if the displaced or would be displaced operator does not accept the alternative route offered to him and the bus route falls short of adequate service due to scope for more services, applications from other interested operators would be considered after giving due preference to displaced as as well as to the would be displaced operators. The direction to give preference is a direct encroachment on the quasi-judicial power of a Regional Transport Authority and is therefore invalid. The second proviso says that the Regional Transport Authority would grant alternative routes to the displaced operators in their respective regions. This direction only reiterates what the law is on the point and is not in any way invalid. (Para 9)
2. The facts leading to the reference and the circumstances under which the reference has been made may be briefly stated as follows—
Petitioner Jagdish Prasad applied for grant of a fresh permit on the Beawar-Bijainagar via Sheopura Ghata route on 30th July, 1962. This application was published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra of 30th August, 1962, and objections were invited under sec, 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Respondent No. 3 Tarachand Tak, who was one of the eight existing operators of Beawar-Bijainagar via Sheopura Ghata route, filed objections against the grant of permit to the petitioner.
3. It may be mentioned here that on 20th June, 1962, the State Transport Authority exercising its powers under sec. 54 sub-sec. (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, issued certain directions which run as follows—
"The State Transport Authority, Rajasthan, in its meeting held on 2.6.62, have resolved vide resolution No. 2 as under:
Resolved that in pursuance of the power conferred u/s. 44(3) of the M.V. Act, 1939, the S.T.A. Rajasthan, Jaipur hereby directs all the RTAs in Rajasthan to desist from granting fresh stage carriage permits on A class routes in their respective regions (except those routes lying in Bikaner Region) in order to offer altera-native route to the displaced as well as would be displaced operator in view of nationalisation of a number of routes in the State. The above direction shall continue to be operative till the displaced as well as would be displaced persons in due process of law are rehabilitated.
Provided that if the displaced or the would be displaced operators do not accept the alteranative routes offered to them and bus routes which fall short of adequate service due to scope for more services, applications from other interested operators be considered after giving due preference to the displaced as well as would be displaced operators.
Provided further that RTAs would grant alternative routes to displaced or would be displaced operators in their respective region only—
The above direction shall however not govern cases for renewals.
This supersedes all previous directions issued in this regard from time to time.
The proceeding of the meeting will be sent to you in due course of time and in the mean while I am directed to request you to please take necessary action in the matter."
The petitioners application was considered by the respondent no. 3 at its meeting held in October 1963 and was pending on the ground the "the route in question being A class routes no action can be taken and the case of Jagdish Prasad be kept pending till the route has been first offered to the displaced operators in compliance of the STA resolution dated 2.6.62 and applications., if any, respect there to had been disposed of."
4. Subsequently, the respondent no.2 published a notice in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated 30th October, 1964 notifying for the information of all concerned that the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority will be held on 9th, 10th and 11th November, 1964 in the meeting hall of Government Hostel, Jaipur from 9 A. M. for considerations of the cases" detailed in that notification. Item No. 3 of the notification mentions at page 34 cases regarding the grant of renewal of alternative and fresh stage carriage permits on Beawar-Bijainagar via Sheopura Ghat route. At this meeting the Regional Transport Authority granted a fresh permit to the petitioner by its resolution no.23. Another permit was granted to Automobile Transport, Rajasthan Private Limited, Ajmer.
5. It may be usefully pointed out at this stage as found by the Transport Appellate Tribunal that one Syed Usuf Ali Shah, a displaced operator, had also applied for a permit for alternative route and that his application had been published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated 27th October, 1964 and was pending in the office of the Regional Transpo
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
