KAN SINGH, J.—By this writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution the three petitioners seek to challenge the order of the State Transport Authority Rajasthan, Jaipur dated 14.9.64 (Ex. 13 on the record), by which the State Transport Authority declined to interfere with an order of the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur dated 7/8.3.63 (Ex-1 on the record) on the ground that the petitioners having not availed of the remedy of an appeal could not file the revision application.

2. The three petitioners were holders of stage carriage on Mandawar-Hin-daun route, Karauli-Sir-Mathura route and Karauli-Gangapur route respectively. Non-petitioners Nos. 3 to 24 were permit holders on the Jaipur Karauli route. Their permits were affected by a scheme of nationalisation over the Jaipur Bharat-pur route which was published in the Rajasthan Gazette of 14.12.60. The scheme, however, could not be enforced immediately as the same was under challenge, first before this Court and then before the Supreme Court at the instance of the operators of that route. Eventually with the disposal of the writ petitions and the appeal before the Supreme Court the scheme came into force from 17.4.62. Some of the non-petitioners in the meantime applied for renewal of their permits and were able to obtain them. Subsequently non-petitioners Nos. 3 to 16 applied for grant of stage carriage permits on Mandawar-Mahua-Karauli-Gangapur route and non-petitioners Nos. 17 to 24 applied for grant of permits on Mandawar-Mahua-Karauli-Sir-Mathura route. Their applications were published in the Rajasthan Gazette for inviting objections and the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur, by its resolution No. 89 (Ex.1), granted 8 permits on Mandawar-Sir Mathura route. It also granted 14 permits on Mandawar-Gangapur route. Against this resolution of the Regional Transport Authority the present petitioners filed a revision application before the State Transport Authority Rajasthan, Jaipur. The State Transport Authority by its judgment dated 17.6.63, came to the conclusion that the Regional Transport Authority was in error in granting these 22 permits and consequently accepting the revision it quashed the order of the Regional Transport Authority (Ex. 1). Against that judgment of the State Transport Authority the non-petitioners filed two separate writ) petitions in this court on the ground that the State Transport Authority had passed this order without giving them a proper opportunity of hearing. These writ petitions were accepted by this Court by its judgment dated 10.12.53, and it remanded the case to the State Transport Authority, with a direction to rehear the matter after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the respondents. It was also directed by this Court that the preliminary objections of the respondents should also be heard and decided. After the case was remanded the State Transport Authority re-heard the matter, but this time it dismissed the revision application on two of the preliminary grounds. The essentials of the decision of the State Transport Authority are contained in the following passage: —

"Coming to preliminary objections Nos. 3 and 4 we have gone through the rulings of the Rajasthan High Court and Madras High Court as relied upon by the counsel for the respondents. These rulings are clear enough on the point of maintainability of appeal in the present case, The Rajasthan High Court in the case reported in A. I. R. 1955 page 20 has held that if an objection has been made by somebody entitled to appeal under clause (f) of sec. 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act it gives right of appeal to others falling in bis line to file appeal under the said clause. In this case one of the operators Narainlal Badri Prashad filed written objections under sec. 57—One of the petitioners also filed an appeal but it was later on withdrawn by him. The Mysore High Court has held that even oral objections are enough to lay foundation for an appeal under clause (f). We find that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document