GUPTA, J.—These two writ petitions arise out of the same subject matter and as such it would be proper to dispose them of by a common order.

2. The facts in which these writ petitions arise may be briefly stated. There is a bus route from Gangapur to Deogarh via Raipur and Kareda (hereinafter referred to as the route) which lies in the Udaipur region of the State of Rajasthan. The route is 55 miles long and A class. The petitioner applied for the grant of a non-temporary stage carriage permit on the route and according to the case of the petitioner no objections were filed against his application for the grant of a permit on the route, as a copy of any such objection was not received by the petitioner, as required under Section 57(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The matter regarding the consideration of the application of the petitioner for grant of a permit on the route came up before the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as the R.T.A.) on April 22, 1969. Amar Singh respondent No. 3 (in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 896 of 1973) and another person Nathulal Dad appeared as objectors before the R.T.A. and contested the opening of the new route from Gangapur to Deogarh via Raipur and the grant of a permit to the petitioner on the route. The R.T.A. by its resolution dated April 22, 1969 decided to open the aforesaid new route and also by the same resolution decided to grant a non-temporary stage carriage permit on the route to the petitioner for a period of three years. In consequence of the aforesaid resolution of the R.T.A. a permit was issued to the petitioner on June 6, 1969.

3. One Bhagwatilal, who was an existing operator of Gangapur-Deogarh route, filed a revision petition before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) on July 21, 1969. Amar Singh respondent No. 3 (in writ petition No. 896 of 1973) filed an appeal before the Tribunal on January 18, 1972 against the very same resolution of the R.T.A. dated April 22, 1969 granting a permit to the petitioner on the route. The appellant Amar Singh explained in his memo of appeal that he had applied for a certified copy of the resolution of the R.T.A. in question on April 23, 1969 but as the copy of the same was not supplied to him, so he again applied for a certified copy of the said resolution of the R.T.A. on December 2, 1971 and that the certified copy of the impugned resolution of the R.T.A. was thereafter supplied to him on December 29, 1971 and as such the appeal was filed by him on January 18, 1972 before the Tribunal. The aforesaid appeal of Amar Singh was registered by the Tribunal subject to the decision of the question of limitation. The petitioner filed written objections in respect of the aforesaid appeal and the revision petition before the Tribunal and specifically raised two grounds, namely that the appeal and revision petition filed by Amar Singh and Bhagwatilal respectively were not maintainable in law, inasmuch no foundation was laid for filing an appeal under Section 64(f) of the Act by Amar Singh as he did not supply a copy of his alleged objections to the petitioner within the time limited by the provisions of Section 57(4) of the Act and that a revision petition could not have been filed in the matter of grant of a stage carriage permit, in respect of which an appeal was maintainable under Section 64 of the Act. Bhagwatilal could not maintain an appeal as well because he did not file any objection or representation within the meaning of Section 57(4) of the Act. Secondly, it was urged on behalf of the petitioner before the Tribunal that the appeal filed by Amar Singh before it was barred by time. The Tribunal heard the appeal and by its order dated June 20, 1973 allowed both the appeal as well as the revision petition The Tribunal held that the R.T.A was not empowered to grant a permit to the petitioner by the same resolution by which

Click Here to Read the rest of this document