RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a special appeal by the appellant against the order of a learned Judge dismissing his petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

( 2 ) THE facts leading to the petition are a bit complicated, as they concern not only the proceedings on the application of Santosh Kumar, Respondent No. 2, for a stage carriage, permit but are also connected with the applications of two other persons bearing the same name Shanti swamp.

( 3 ) WE shall first mention the facts concerning the proceedings on the application of Santosh kumar.

( 4 ) THE appellant runs a stage carriage as private carrier on Muzaffarnagar-Shamli-Kairana route. This route formed part of two other routes also, namely muzaffarnagar-Shamli-Kairana-Jhinjhana route and Muzaffarnagar-Shamli-Kairana-Kandhla route. The portion between Muzaffarnagar and Shamli of this route was common to two other routes also namely, Muzaffarnagar-Sharli-Jhinjhana-Chausana and muzaffarnagar-Shamli-Jhinjhana-Bidaul. Upto 1950 four stage carriages used to ply on muzaffarnagar-Shamli-Jhinjhana-Chausana- Bidauli route. This route was split up by the Regional Transport Authority (hereinafter called the Authority) by a resolution dated 13th October, 1950, into three routes and a number of buses were distributed as follows: two buses were fixed for Muzaffarnagar-Shamli-Jhinjhana-Chausana route, and one bus each was allotted to the other two routes Muzaffarnagar-Shamli-Jhinjhana-Bidauli and shamli-Jhinjhana-Chau-sana. Santosh Kumar, respondent No. 2, applied for a permit on Muzaffarnagar-Kairana-Jhinjhana route. The authority at Meerut rejected his application at its meeting of the 28th November, 1950. Santosh Kumar filed an appeal to the State Transport Authority Tribunal (hereinafter called the Tribunal): so did Smt Sona Devi against the Authority granting a temporary permit to shanti Swarup on Muzaf-farnagr-Shamli-Kairana-Jhinjhana route.

( 5 ) BOTH the appeals of Santosh Kumar and Sona Devi were disposed of by the Tribunal on the 4th February, 1955. The two appeals were allowed. The Tribunal directed the Authority to consider the objections of Smt. Sona Devi and other operators, to consider the comparative merits of the claims of Santosh Kumar and Shanti Swarup, to grant permit to the persons considered deserving and to allow the permit granted to Shanti Swamp to remain in operation till the decision of the Authority and that he should not be granted the permit.

( 6 ) AUTHORITY by its resolution dated the 2nd July, 1955, rejected the application of Santosh kumar. Santosh Kumar filed an appeal to the Tribunal (Appeal No. 5 of 1956 ). At the hearing of this appeal on the 6th February, 1958, the Tribunal suggested to Santosh Kumar whether he would like to have a permit on Muzaffarnagar-Shamli-Jhinjhana-Chausana route, and, on his expressing his readiness to have it, passed the following order:

" the appellant would be satisfied and the appeal will stand disposed of if the appellant can be given a permit on any of the two aforesaid routes in the alleged vacancies. The R, T. A. may consider the request and give the vacancy if there is no arrangement yet on any of these routes. So far as the formalities are concerned the variation is so small that it may be deemed to be covered by the intention of Rule 50 (b ). The R. T. A. will, therefore, consider this suggestion and report by 7th April 1958. "

On 24th March 1958 the Authority wrote to the Tribunal indicating that a permit could be granted on the route specified in the application, that the power to modify could not extend to change of route entirely and that the vacancy on the Muzaf-farnagar-Chausana route would be filed by properly inviting applications; and the appellant (Santosh Kumar) at best could apply then, On the 12th June, 1958, the Tribunal however passed an order, relevant extracts of which are reproduced below:"we have heard this appeal at length and we are of the opinion that the fourth vacancy on the muzaff

Click Here to Read the rest of this document