Skip to content


Mahesh Transport Co. Vs. R.T.A. Jodhpur - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 1358 of 1980
Judge
Reported inAIR1982Raj80
ActsMotor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 52(2) and (3)
AppellantMahesh Transport Co.
RespondentR.T.A. Jodhpur
Appellant Advocate R.R. Vyas, Adv.
Respondent Advocate B.L. Maheshwari, Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
- - in the present case in my opinion such situation had arisen in which power of extension of date could legitimately be exercised, else the very purpose of publication of the notification for inviting applications would have been defeated......notification dt.20-12-1979. 2. the facts of the present case lie in a very narrow compass. the regional transport authority, jodhpur, after fixing the scope of four stage carriages to perform two return services over the route gachipura to ajmer had invited applications for grant of four non-temporary stage carriage permits. the applications were invited through a gazette notification dt. 20-12-1979 (annexure p/1), in which it was notified that the interested persons must file the application within a period of 30 days from the date of the publication. in pursuance of the notification annexure p/l the petitioner and three others submitted their applications on 27-12-1979. however, the regional transport authority issued another notification published in the rajasthan rajpatra dt......
Judgment:
ORDER

M.C. Jain, J.

1. The petitioner in this writpetition has sought a prayer restrainingthe Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur, from considering the belated applications received in pursuance of thenotification published in the RajasthanRajpatra dt. 13-3-1980 along with thepetitioner's application and other applications which had been received in pursuance of the Gazette Notification dt.20-12-1979.

2. The facts of the present case lie in a very narrow compass. The Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur, after fixing the scope of four stage carriages to perform two return services over the route Gachipura to Ajmer had invited applications for grant of four non-temporary stage carriage permits. The applications were invited through a Gazette Notification dt. 20-12-1979 (Annexure P/1), in which it was notified that the interested persons must file the application within a period of 30 days from the date of the publication. In pursuance of the Notification Annexure P/l the petitioner and three others submitted their applications on 27-12-1979. However, the Regional Transport Authority issued another notification published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dt. 13-3-1980. (Annexure P/3), wherein the time for presentation of application was further extended up to 30 days from the date of the publication of the second notification i.e. Annexure P/3. In pursuance of the notification dt. 7-2-1980 published on 13-3-1980 (Annexure P/3) further nine applications were submitted, as would be evident from the Notification dt. 1-5-1980 (Annexure P/4), published in Rajasthan Gazette dt. 9-6-1980. The only grievance of the petitioner is that only those applications which have been received by the Regional Transport Authority in pursuance of the first notification could be considered and the applications which have been received in pursuance of the second notification could not be considered simultaneously along with the applications received in pursuance of the first notification. The applications according to the petitioner submitted after the expiry of the 30 days from the date of publication of the first notification are liable to be rejected and cannot be considered by the Regional Transport Authority along with the petitioner's application and the applications of three others,

3. Return to the writ petition has been filed by the Regional Transport Authority in which it has been stated that the first notification published in the Gazette dt. 20-12-1979 was out on 15-1-1980 and thereafter it was despatched to subscribers. The late despatch ,was on account of disruption caused by stride. The said Gazette wasreceived in the office of Regional, Transport Officer, Jodhpur after 20-1-1980 and even in the High Court Library, it was received on 23-1-1980. This return is accompanied with an affidavit of Shri Daulat Raj Bhandari, District Transport Officer (Writs) with a copy of the letter of the Director, Printing and Stationary Department, Jaipur. The non-petitioner Bachraj Singh has also filed a reply on the main points.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. The only question which arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the applications of non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 9, who filed their applications in pursuance of the second notification could be considered along with the applications which were submitted in pursuance of the first notification. Shri R.R. Vyas learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the resolution of the above controversy hinges on the proper construction of Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Sub-section (2) and relevant part of Sub-section (3) of Section 57 of the M. V. Act are reproduced hereunder for facility of reference:--

Section 57. Procedure in applying for and granting permits-- (1) ......

(2) An application for a stage carriage permit or a public carrier's permit shall be made not less than six weeks before the date on which it is desired that the permit shall take effect, or if the Regional Transport Authority appoints dates for the receipt of such applications, on such dates.

(3) On receipt of an application for a stage carriage permit or a public carrier's permit, the Regional Transport Authority shall make the application available for inspection at the office of the Authority and shall publish the application or the substance thereof in the prescribed manner together with a notice of the date before which representations in connection therewith may be submitted and the date, not being less than thirty days from such publication, on which, and the time and place at which, the application and any representations, received will be considered :

Provided that, if the grant of any permit in accordance with the application or with modifications would have the effect of increasing the number of vehicles operating in the region, or in any area or on any route within the region, under the class of permits to which the application relates, beyond the limit fixed in that behalf under Sub-section (3) of Section 47 or Sub-section (2) of Section 55, as the case may be, the Regional Transport Authority may summarily refuse the application without following procedure laid down in this sub-section.

Section 57 deals with the procedure in applying for and granting permits. In Sub-section (1) of Section 57, there is no limitation for making applications for grant of contract carriage permit or private carrier's permit but Sub-sections (2) and (3) do make provisions for time limit for the application for stage carriage permit or a public carrier's permit. Sub-sec. (2) lays down that an application for a stage carriage permit is required to be made not less than six weeks before the date on which it is desired that the permit shall take effect, and in the alternative it further provides that the Regional Transport Authority may appoint dates for the receipt of such applications. Then the applications have to be submitted on such dates. Sub-section (3) provides that when applications are received for stage carriage permit, the Regional Transport Authority shall make the application available for inspection and then shall publish the application or the substance thereof in the prescribed manner together with a notice of the date before which representations in connection therewith may be submitted. The Regional Transport Authority is further required to publish the date not being less than thirty days from such publication, on which, and the time and place at which, the application and any representations, received will be considered. The contention of Shri Vyas is that when once applications are presented in pursuance of publication of notification, then Sub-section (3) comes into play and the Regional Transport Authority is required to make the application available for inspection and publish the application for inviting representations and also publish the date, time and place, which shall not be less than thirty days from the publication for consideration thereof. Sub-section (3) according to Shri Vyas does notcontemplate issuance of any second notification thereby extending the date of receipt of applications. Shri Vyas submitted that in case such a power is conceded to the Regional Transport Authority to extend the date for receipt of application then such a power is likely to be abused and so the two subsections should be so construed as not to confer any power of extension of the date once fixed by the Regional Transport Authority.

6. Shri Maheshwari on the other hand refuted the above submission of Shri Vyas and submitted that the power of appointing the date for the receipt of applications vests in the Regional Transport Authority under Sub-section (2) and when circumstances arise then it is competent for the Regional Transport Authority to extend the date so that the matter may receive wide publicity and in pursuance thereof proper applications may be submitted to the Regional Transport Authority. Shri Maheshwari emphatically urged that the matter needs to be judged in the peculiar facts of the present case. According to him strike was going on in the Government Press. The first notification was published on 20th Dec. 1979 but, due to strike the Gazette was not out from the Press till 15-1-1980. In fact there was no publication before 15-1-1980. According to Shri Maheshwari actual publication began only after 15-1-1980 when the Gazette was despatched from the Press. The very purpose according to him is publication to the people at large. Merely printing at the Press and keeping the printed Gazette in the press was insufficient so the Regional Transport Authority under these circumstances was justified in exercising its powers in extending the date.

7. I have carefully considered therival submissions and in my opinion the submissions made by Shri Vyas are difficult to be accepted. The power of appointing date for the receipt of the applications vests in the Regional Transport Authority under Sub-section (2) of Section 57. This provision does not lay down that once the power is exercised, further power cannot be exercised by the Regional Transport Authority. The question as to whether the applications received in pursuance of the second notification can be considered along withthe applications received in pursuance of the first notification is linked with the question as to whether the Regional Transport Authority possesses the power of extending the date of receipt of the applications. Sub-section (2) in my opinion onfers such a power on the Regional Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authority is competent to extend the date for receipt of applications, t is true that the power should not be misused but circumstances may arise which may impel the Regional Transport Authority to extend the date and under such circumstances it would be within the competence of Regional Transport Authority to extend the date for the receipt of applications. In the present case in my opinion such situation had arisen in which power of extension of date could legitimately be exercised, else the very purpose of publication of the notification for inviting applications would have been defeated. When the Gazette was not despatched or was not put up to 15-1-1980 i. e., up to 25 days from the date of printing, it would mean that the notification did not come to light whereby applications were invited. The provision contained in Sub-section (3) does not in any way curtail the power of appointment of the date vested in the Regional Transport Authority. How the applications are to be dealt with after their receipt has been provided in Sub-section (3) but Sub-section (3) does not make a provision for the appointment of date for the receipt of applications. For that only the provision contained in Sub-section (2) is to be looked into. I have not been referred to any case on the point in question. Thus in my opinion the contention advanced by Shri Vyas has no merit and is overruled.

8. No other point has been pressed before me.

9. In the result this writ petition has no force so it is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //