JAGAT NARAYAN, C.J.—These two writ petitions have been referred by a Learned Single Judge because he was of the opinion that the decision of another learned Single Judge in Harishchander Singh vs. Regional Transport Authority (1) requires reconsideration.

2. The relevant facts are these. The petitioner is one out of 17 existing operators on the Bikaner-Dungargarh-Sardarshahar route. Formerly there was no road between Dungargarh and Ratangarh. A new road was later on constructed and applications were filed by different persons for grant of permits over Bikaner-Dungargarh-Ratangarh route and over Bikaner-Dungargarh-Ratangarh-Churu route. These applications were published in the Gazette from time to time, and a meeting of the Regional Transport Authority was convened on 25-6-69 to consider them. Neither the petitioner nor any other person filed any objection against the grant of permits on these routes to the applicants in accordance with the provisions of sec. 57(3). On the date of hearing the petitioner appeared before the Regional Transport Authority and filed an application that it could not grant any permit on the Bikaner-Churu route as it had not fixed the limit of permits as required under sec 47(3). The R. T. A. thereupon proceeded to fix the scope of both he routes. The scope of Bikaner-Churu route was fixed at 5 permits providing 2 return services daily. The scope of Bikaner-Ratangarh route was fixed at 5 permits providing 6 return trips daily Thereafter at the same meeting the R. T. A. considered the rival claims of the applicants for permits on these two routes. On the Bikaner-Churu route it granted 5 permits to respondent No. 2 to 6 of writ petition No. 1134/69. On the Bikaner Ratangarh route the scope of which was fixed at 5 permits it granted 3 permits to respondent No. 2 to 4 of writ petition No. 1135/69 as these 3 persons alone had applied for grant of permit on this route.

3 Girdharilal filed the present writ petitions challenging the grant of permits to these respondents on 22-8-69.

4. It was contended before the learned Single Judge on behalf of the petitioner that as the R. T. A. had not fixed the limit under sec. 47(3) by means of an independent order of an anterior date the grant of permits on the routes was without jurisdiction and could be challenged by filing a writ petition. The learned Single Judge was inclined to accept this argument. Chandmal J. had taken a different view in Harishchander Singh vs. Regional Transport Authority (1) and therefore he made this reference.

5. The view taken by Chandmal J. cannot be sustained in view of the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in R.O. Naidu vs. Addl. S.T.A.T. Madras(2). But it was not held even in that case that the grant of permit without fixing the limit under sec. 47(3) was null and void. This matter was considered by us in Smt. Shakuntala Devi vs. Transport Appellate Tribunal Jaipur (D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 1 13/69 decided on 28-1-70) and we held that the grant of permit in such a case would no doubt be illegal as being against the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, but it would not be null and void. The permit so granted is not a nullity and has to be challenged by filing an appeal against the grant of permit to the Transport Appellate Tribunal and this Court will not entertain a writ petition against the grant of permit unless an appeal has been tiled before the T. A, T. and has failed.

6. These two writ petitions cannot therefore be entertained by this Court.

7. It may be mentioned here that in this case the R. T. A. first took a decision to open these two new routes on the ground that a road connecting Dungargarh and Ratangarh had been newly constructed and that it was necessary to provide direct services between Bikaner and Churu and Ratangarh respectively. The R. T. A. then fixed the limit of permits on these two new routes. Thereafter it proceeded to consider rival claims of the applicants for the Bikaner-Churu route and granted

Click Here to Read the rest of this document