Judgement

VENKATARAMIAH, J. :- The petitioner in the above petition filed under Article 136 of the Constitution has prayed for special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Miscellaneous Petition No. 2577 of 1984 dated 6-1-1986. In the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court the petitioner had questioned the validity of an advertisement issued by the Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) inviting tenders from owners of motor vehicles for plying their vehicles on the routes mentioned therein as nominees of the Corporation under the permits issued in favour of the Corporation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is alleged that the petitioner who was an unemployed graduate entered into an agreement with the Corporation to ply his bus as a nominee on the route Gwalior to Chinor via Dabra for a period of five years ending on December 23, 1982. The route in question came within scheme No. 38 published under Section 68-C of the Act. The permit of the Corporation was to expire on 23-12-1982. Therefore the Corporation applied for renewal of its permit but since it took time for finalisation, temporary permits were issued from time to time. The petitioner was permitted to ply his bus on the monthly basis during that period. Under the agreement the petitioner was liable to pay periodically certain amount to the Corporation as nomination fees or supervision charges and additional taxes. But on 12-8-1984, as stated earlier, tenders were invited by the Corporation from private operators for the grant of the privilege of running buses as stage carriages as the nominees of the Corporation. Aggrieved by the said advertisement the petitioner filed the writ petition, referred to above, in the High Court. The petitioner contended that even though he had been regularly paying the nomination fees and taxes, yet the Corporation in order to earn more money by way of nomination fees had invited tenders from others with a stipulation that tenders of those giving the highest offers by way of nomination fees would be accepted and they would be appointed nominees of the Corporation to ply the stage carriages. The petitioner further contended that the decision to invite tenders was arbitrary and illegal. In the Writ Petition he obtained an interim order dated 11-9-1984 under which he was allowed to operate his motor vehicle as a stage carriage on the same terms and conditions as the nominee of the Corporation. The petitioner continued to ply his motor vehicle on the route in question on the basis of the temporary permits issued in the name of the Corporation till 31-5-1985. Since no temporary permit was obtained by the Corporation thereafter the petitioner could not ply his motor vehicle in question. In the meanwhile under the orders passed by this Court in Special Leave Petition Nos. 941, 4667 to 4669, and 7115-7117 of 1985 dated July 22, 1985 filed by some others, the petitioners therein who were similarly situated were allowed to ply their motor vehicles on some other routes as the nominees of the Corporation for a period of five years. The above order, it is alleged, was passed on a concession made by the Corporation. The said order is not supported by reasons. The petitioner relying upon the above order contended before the High Court in the writ petition filed by him that he should also be permitted to ply his motor vehicle as a nominee of the Corporation for a further period of five years. The High Court declined to grant the request of the petitioner since by then the scheme No. 38 had been approved and had come into effect from June 1, 1985 and dismissed the writ petition on January 6, 1986. Aggrieved by the order of the High Court the petitioner has filed this petition.

2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that since the petitioner had been permitted to operate