Back
Rajasthan High Court
Modi, Acting C.J. & Kan Singh, J.
Bhonrilal - Appellant
Versus
Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur - Respondents
D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 45 of 1966
Decided On : January 17, 1967
Candidates for permits who are already in the arena and are competing against one another need not always file separate representations against the other rival applicants. Once the applications of the candidates are published, it is sufficient notice for everybody including the rival applicants to be fore-warded. They ought to bear in mind that the other applicants would plead as to how they deserve consideration in comparison to other applicants. There can be cases where grounds other than those as are incidental to the pleading of ones own cause might to desired to be urged and in such cases a written representation might be necessary. In the present case, however, all that the petitioner-appellant wanted to ensure was the publication of his own application and then a proper consideration of the same along with those filed by others. It was the plain duty of the Regional Transport Authority to publish all the applications that were pending at the time it ordered the publication of respondents applications and then to consider them together so that their just and proper disposal would be ensured. The request that the petitioner was making to the Regional Transport Authority was not, in the very nature of things, for refusing the grant of permits to the respondents outright. In such a case, therefore, a separate representation by the petitioner, was not necessary and sec. 57(4) could hardly apply to such a contingency. (Para 13)
These rules clearly imply that there are two well demarcated stages in the process of giving permits to an operator. The first stage is when the Regional Transport Authority decides to grant the permit and the second stage comes after that when after ensuring that the applicant has secured the registration certificate for the vehicle of the requisite number, it actually issues the permit. The discretion of the Regional Transport Authority in the matter of granting time to an applicant when he is not actually possessed of a vehicle of requisite model, is not hard and fast. In these circumstances it cannot be held that the application of the petitioner could not have been granted at all on the ground that his vehicle was of on earlier make than prescribed. (Para 16)
2. Bhonrilal was one of the 59 operators on the Jaipur-Sikar amalgamated route which comprised the following 8 routes :—
1. Jaipur—Sikar direct,
2. Jaipur—Chomu—Rainwal—Bhadwa,
3. Jaipur—Reengus—Sri Madhopur,
4. Jaipur—Chomu—Ajitgarh,
5. Jaipur—Chomu—Chandwari,
6. Jaipur—Pandi—Bilochi,
7. Jaipur—Chomu—Samot,
8. Jaipur—Chomu—Danta.
In 1960, the Regional Transport Authority invited applications for a direct route between Jaipur and Pilani, by a notification published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 15th September, 1960. On 12th October, 1960, the petitioner made an application in pursuance of this notification for the grant of a permit. We will have occasion to refer in detail to this application a little later. The applications received for the stage carriage permits over Jaipur-Pilani route in response to the gazette notification dated 15th September, 1960. were put up at a meeting of the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur, held on 22/23rd March, 1961, for a decision whether these may be sent for publication, but consideration of the same was postponed by the Regional Transport Authority \ide Ex. 11. Later on the applications were put up again at a meeting of the Regional Transport Authority held on 10/1lth November, 1961, but the Regional Transport Authority once again resolved that the case be postponed. In the year 1963, a number of fresh applications for permits were made before the Regional Transport Authority by other persons including respondents, and were published in three lots on 2nd January, 1964, 27th February, 1964 and 19th March, 1964 respectively. This time the petitioner made a grievance of the fact that though these subsequent applications were published, the application made by him in 1960 had not been published, and he made a representation to the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority on 1st April, 1964 (vide Ex. 6) to that effect and then again to the Chairman of the Regional Transport Authority on 20th July, 1964 (vide Ex. 7) thereby requesting the Regional Transport Authority to publish the petitioners application and consider it long with other applications for permits on the Jaipur-Pilani route. As inspite of these representations the petitioners application was not published and as eventually on 26th May, 1965, permits were granted to the respondents (vide Ex. 9), the petitioner filed the writ petition on 20th July, 1965, praying for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority (Ex. 9) and to issue a writ of mandamus to the Regional Transport Authority to publish the petitioners application submitted by him on 13th October, 1960, in accordance with law and then consider the same along with the applications of respondents Nos. 2 to 21.
3. The writ petition was opposed by the respondents. The respondents denied in their written reply that the petitioner had made any such application as asserted by him. However, during the pendency of the writ petition the Secretary to the Regional Transport Authority filed an affidavit on 27th August, 1965, that the petitioner had filed an application for grant of permit on Jaipur-Pilani route as asserted by him, but the same was misplaced and, therefore, could not be dealt with. The application had since then been traced out. The respondents thereafter did not contest the filing of the application by the appellant Bhonrilal
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
