KAN SINGH, J.—These are three writ petitions under Art.226 of the Constitution which can conveniently be dealt with together. The subject-matter of writ petition No 657 of 1967 Shivcharanlal vs. Regional Transport Authority Jaipur and writ petition No. 709/67 Daulatram vs. Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur is an order of the Regional Transport Authority Jaipur, dated 16-10-67 in pursuance of circulation note No. 498/67 of even date granting permits on Alwar Pahadi via Nagar, Sikri Gopalgarh route one each to respondents Dharamchand Kapoorchand Jain and Ved Prakash respectively. The subject-matter of writ petition No. 739 of 1967 Sumat Prasad Jain vs. Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur is an order of the Regional Transport Authority fixing certain timings for the running of the buses of these respondents. I may narrate the facts with reference to Shivcharanlals writ petition here. I

2. The route in question is Alwar to Pahadi via Gopalgarh, Sikri and Nagar. It is 57 miles in length and is an A-Class route. The petitioner applied for grant of a non-temporary stage carriage permit over this route on 9th December, 1966. The substance of his application was published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated 9-3-1967, in accordance with the provisions of sec. 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 hereinafter referred to as the Act for inviting objections within 30 days from the date of the publication of the notification in the Gazette. According to the petitioner, no objections were preferred against his application within the prescribed time. His grievance is that although his application had become ripe for consideration at the hands of the Regional Transport Authority, the latter did not consider it along with the applications of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and leaving out his application, the Regional Transport Authority decided to grant one permit to each of these respondents. This is in a nut-shell the case set up by the present petitioner.

3. The case, however has a short history, Prior to the impugned order of the Regional Transport Authority, the Regional Transport Authority had given a permit in November, 1966, to respondent No. 2 Dharam Chand Kapoorchand Jain by a circulation note. That order was challenged by a writ petition by respondent Ved Prakash. The Writ petition of Ved Prakash was S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 90 of 1967. That writ petition was disposed of by a judgment of this Court dated J8th September, 1967 by accepting the writ petition. The resolution of the Regional Transport Authority was set aside and a direction was issued to the Regional Transport Authority in the following terms:

"The result is that I allow this writ petition and quash the order of the Regional Transport Authority dated 16th November, 1966, granting permit to respondent No 2. In consequence, the permit issued to respondent No. 2 shall stand cancelled. Since 1 am told that there is no other vehicle plying on this route, and in view of the fact that the disposal of the applications filed by the petitioner and respondent No. 2 respectively has been much delayed I direct the Regional Transport Authority to decide these applications according to law within a period of four weeks from today."

On 3rd October, 1967, the Regional Transport Authority had published a notification in the gazette fixing 6th, 7th and 8th November, 1967, for consideration of several applications for grant of permits on this route. According to that notification, the applications had been published on various dates such as 7-4-66, 18-8-66, 1-12-66, 29-9-66,17-11-66, 5-1-67,6-3-67, 23-2-67 and 15-12-66 The petitioner contends that in spite of the notification having been issued on 3rd October, 1967, and which was published in the Gazette dated 5-10-67 setting down all the applications for consideration in November, 1967, the Regional Transport Authority had taken up the applications of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 only on 16-10-67 and according to the petitioner it had wrongly gr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document