LODHA, J.—The dispute in this case is between two rival claimants for grant of permit to ply stage carriage on Chittorgarh-Banswara route via Shambhupara, Nimba-hera. Chhotisadri, Dhamotra, Pratapgarh, Peoplerwoot. Khamera and Ghatol. This route was surveyed on the application of the petitioner Kandhari Babu. Originally scope of three Buses with one return service was fixed and the petitioner was granted a temporary permit to ply on this route. Later on, the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur, revised the scope and fixed it as five Buses with two return services by its Resolution dated 18 April, 1973. By a Notification dated 10 May, 1973 published in Rajasthan Rajpatra dated 14 June, 1973, the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur invited applications for grant of non-temporary stage carriage permits on this route and the petitioner submitted his application on 4 July, 1973. The non-petitioner No. 3 Rooplal, who is the contesting non-petitioner in the present writ petition, also applied for one permit on this route. In all, there were 29 applicants including the petitioner and the non-petitioner No. 3, Rooplal (who, for the sake of brevity, will, hereinafter, be referred as to the non-petitioner). The applications were considered by the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur on 6, 7 and 8 February, 1973 and by its Resolution No. 43 (Ex. 8 at page 59 of the Paper Book), the Regional Transport Authority granted five permits one each, to Nathuram Gopikishan, Fakirchand, Jamnalal and the petitioner respectively.

2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur, the non-petitioner filed appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan Jaipur (to be referred to hereinafter as S.T.A.T.) impleading all the five persons to whom permits had been granted by the Regional Transport Authority as respondents. The S.T.A.T., by its order dated 5 February, 1975 (marked Exhibit-9) allowed the non-petitioners appeal and while setting aside the permit granted to the petitioner, allowed one permit to the non-petitioner. The present writ petition has been directed against the aforesaid order of the S. T. A. T. marked Exhibit-9

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the S. T. A. T. has made wrongful presumptions and its findings against the petitioner are based on no evidence. It has been pressed upon me that the impugned order is arbitrary and capricious and has been passed in disregard of the well established principles in the matter of such grant and is, therefore, liable to be quashed by a writ of certiorari. On the other hand, the writ petition has been strongly opposed by Mr. Ram Raj Vyas on behalf of the non-petitioner. It has been argued, in the first instance, that the S. T. A. T. had jurisdiction to grant permit to one party in preference to another and the discretion exercised by the S. T. A. T. should not be interfered with by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction.

4. The law as to the powers of the Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction in such matters is so well established that it hardly needs any criterion or detailed discussion. Mere wrong exercise of discretion does not furnish a sufficient ground for exercise of writ jurisdiction by this Court. But if the Tribunal has based its findings on no evidence and its inference are based on wrongful presumptions or unwarranted assumptions or there are errors apparent on the face of the record or if the Tribunal has recorded its findings in disregard of the mandatory provisions of law or in violation of the principles of natural justice, it cannot be denied, that this Court has jurisdiction to correct such palpable errors.

5. Now, the principles governing grant of permits for plying stage carnages also seem to be well established. In Ajantha Transport (P) Ltd., Coimbatore vs. M/s. V. K. Transports Pulampatti (1) their Lordships were pleased to observe "that an exercise of the permit issuing power, under se

Click Here to Read the rest of this document