An existing operator on a bus route has no locus standi to challenge the grant of a stage carriage permit if he has not made any representation under Section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 within the prescribed time.

NATESAN, J. :- The two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution and the connected Writ Appeal directed against an interlocutory order in W. P. No. 1055 of 1968 vacating the interim stay granted before notice, relate to the grant of a stage carriage permit on the route Madampoondi to Ulundurpet (Via) La-Gudalur, Rishivandiam, etc. By a notification dated 16-12-1967, the Regional Transport Authority, South Arcot, under Section 57 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, invited applications for the grant of a stage carriage permit on the route. There were three applicants, for the route in question, the 2nd respondent in the writ petitions being one. On 12-1-1968 the applications were duly notified under Section 57 (3) and 8-2-1968 was fixed as the date, on or before which representations in connection with the applications should be submitted furnishing copies thereof simultaneously to the applicants. The applications with representations were originally scheduled to be taken up for consideration on 29-2-1968, but were adjourned to 12-3-1968.

The petitioner is a fleet owner operating 12 buses on a sector of the route in question. No representations or objections to the applications entertained by the Regional Transport Authority for permit on the route in question were submitted by the petitioner within the time prescribed. But, the petitioner sent a petition by registered post to the Regional Transport Authority which was acknowledged by the Regional Transport Authority, on 27-2-1968, praying that proceedings under Section 47 (3) should be taken before consideration of the applications for permit on the merits. Again, when the applications were actually taken up for consideration by the Regional Transport Authority on 12-3-1968, the petitioner appeared through Counsel and submitted that consideration of the applications should be postponed, pending determination under Section 47 (3). In the proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority dated 12-3-1968, the 2nd respondent in the writ petitions became grantee. From the proceedings it is seen that there was only one objector. Grant of the permit to the 2nd respondent was duly communicated to the applicants and the representator on 3-4-1968. The proceedings did not refer to the receipt of the petition filed by the petitioner and representation made on his behalf by his Counsel on 12-3-1968.

It is under these circumstances that the petitioner came to this Court first with W. P. No. 1055 of 1968 for the issue of a writ of prohibition. Later, after the 2nd respondent came on the scene and represented that the permit in question had been granted to him on 3-4-1968 itself, the petitioner applied for amendment of the relief of prohibition into one of certiorari. He also filed an independent application, W. P. No. 1794 of 1968 for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the Regional Transport Authority dated 12-3-1968.

2. The substantial contention of the petitioner is that there has been no inquiry under Section 47 (3) and the proceedings, taken under Section 57 (3) without a prior determination of the number of permits to be granted on the route in question, are vitiated. It is submitted that, as the petitioner, an existing operator on the route, had specifically objected to the hearing of the applications for permit on the merits without prior determination under Section 47 (3), the proceedings are void and without jurisdiction, and should be quashed. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the batch of writ appeals and writ petitions. W. A. Nos. 264 to 266 of 1967 : (AIR 1969 Mad 441), Gobald Motor Services (P.) Ltd.; Mettupalayam v. Regional Transport Authority, Coimbatore and sW. P. Nos. 67 and 72 of 1966 (Mad) and W. P. No. 406 of 1968 (Mad) following the decision of the Supreme Court in Jayaram Motor Service v. S. Rajarathinam, (1967) 2 SCWR 857 at p. 860 and Lakshmi Narain Agarwal v. State Transport Authority, Civil Appeal No. 636 of 1967 :