JAGAT NARAYAN C J.—This is a special appeal against the judgment of a learned single Judge allowing a writ petition filed by Shyam Sunder Azad respondent and cancelling the permit granted to Smt. Shakuntla Devi appellant by the Regional Transport Authority in its meeting dated 6-2-1969.

2. On 22-2-1967 the appellant applied for a permit on Bharatpur-Govindgarh direct route, which was a new route, the scope of which had not been fixed under sec. 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). The application was published in the Gazette dated 6.4.1967 and objections were invited within 30 days, It was published again on 13-7-1967 by mistake and objections were again invited. Shyam Sunder alleges that he filed an objection when the application was published for the second time in the Gazette dated 13-7-1967. He has filed a uncertified copy of that objection as it is not to be found on the record of the Regional Transport Authority. Shyam Sunders name did not appear in the list of objectors published by the Regional Transport Authority.

3. On 6-3-1969 one permit was granted by the Regional Transport Authority to Smt. Shakuntala Devi on an experimental basis pending fixing of the limit u/sec.47(3) of the Act The Regional Transport Authority decided to fix this limit after six months when the traffic potentiality would be ascertainable more definitely. Shyam Sunder has alleged that he was present when this order was passed by the Regional Transport Authority but he did not prefer an appeal under sec. 64(f) of the Act to the Transport Tribunal against the grant of permit to Smt. Shakuntala Devi.

4. In its order greeting the permit, the Regional Transport Authority asked Smt. Shakuntala Devi to put in a vehicle of the prescribed model within 30 days. At the same time, it made a pre-emptory order that if this was not done the grant of permit shall stand cancelled.

5. On 2-4-1969 Smt. Shakuntala Devi appellant filed an application for extension of time before the Regional Transport Authority and, on 3-4-1969, she filed an appeal to the Transport Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the time given to her for putting in a vehicle was much too short.

6. This appeal was allowed by the Transport Appellate Tribunal on 22-6-1969 and time was extended. The appellant put in a vehicle on 26-7-1969 within this extended period and got a permit issued. On 3-9-1969 she began to ply her vehicle on the route.

7. On 3-9-1969 Shyam Sunder filed the present writ petition.

8. The learned single Judge has held that as a permit was granted to Smt. Shakuntala Devi by the Regional Transport Authority without fixing the limit of the number of permits to be granted on the route as contemplated by sec. 47(3), the grant of the permit was wholly without jurisdiction, that is, null and void, and could be challenged by Shyam Sunder by filing a writ petition without having re-course to the alternative remedy of filing an appeal to the Transport Appellate Tribunal against the grant of permit. He relied on the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in R. Obliswami Naidu vs. Addl. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras (1) and some of his own decisions.

9. So far as R. Obliswami Naidus case (1) is concerned, it was held in it that firstly, there should be a determination by the Regional Transport Authority under sec. 47(3) of the number of stage carriages for which stage carriage permits may be granted on that route, and thereafter applications should be entertained and that the Regional Transport Authority is not competent to grant stage carriage permits for mere stage carriages than fixed under sec. 47(3). It was not held in that case that the grant of permit without fixing the limit under sec. 47(3) was null and void. The learned single Judge has, however, held in some cases which have been referred to in his judgment that if a permit is granted by the Regional Transport Authority before fixing the limit under sec. 47(3) then

Click Here to Read the rest of this document