Jagat Narayan, C.J.
1. These two special appeals against a judgment of a learned Single Judge can conveniently be disposed of by one judgment.
2. The Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur, formed a route called Jaipur-Sikar amalgamated route consisting of numerous routes in 1955 and granted 56 permits on this route. Some of the unsuccessful applicants filed appeals and the Transport Appellate Tribunal granted 6 more permits on this route in 1956. There were thus 62 permits' on this route. Seven of the permit-holders ceased to ply their vehicles on this route and since the year 1962 or near about only 55 buses had been running on it.
3. On 21-1-1965 the Regional Transport Authority published a general notification (Annexure 2) expressing an intention to increase the limit of permits on allroutes within the Jaipur Region and invited objections. The operators of the Jaipur-Sikar amalgamated route filed objections. But no decision was taken on these objections and the limit was not revised at that time.
4. Applications were filed for grant of fresh permits on the Jaipur-Sikar amalgamated route from time to time. The following applications were published on the dates mentioned against each:--
1. Abdul Aziz .. .. 29-9-1966
2. Hari Narain .. .. 23-2-1967
3. T. G. Soni .. .. 9-3-1967
4. Radhey Shyam Goel .. 10-6-1985
5. Mohammad Yusuf .. 7-9-1967
Several other persons applied for grant ofpermit? and their applications were alsopublished, but it is not necessary to givethe dates of their publication.
5. These Explications were considered at a meeting or the Regional Transport Authority on 19-10-1937 and 5 permits were granted to the above-named 5 persons. Kanhaiyalal., an existing operator on the Jaipur-Sikar amalgamated route, who had filed an objection against the grant of fresh permits on this route, filed S. B. Civil Writ Petn. No. 638 of 1967 (Raj.) against the grant of permits to the above five persons. He did not file any appeal to the Transport Appellate Tribunal against the grant of permits
6. The Regional Transport Authority had not passed any order under Section 47 (3) fixing the limit of permits to be granted on this route before granting the above 5 permits. On this ground the learned Single Judge held that the grant of permits by the Regional Transport Authority was a nullity and he entertained Kanhaiyalal's writ petition even though he had not availed of the alternative remedy by way of filing an appeal. He quashed the permits granted to the above 5 persons. During the pendency of the writ petition the Regional Transport Authority passed an order under Section 47 (3) fixing the limit of permits at 60. The learned Single Judge took this fact into consideration and directed the Regional Transport Authority to reconsider the applications of the 5 persons whose permits had been quashed by him along with the applications of all other applicants which might be ripe for consideration, after fixing a proper agenda.
7. Against the above judgment Hari Narain has filed Special Appeal No. 92 of 1869. The first contention on his behalf is that the Regional Transport Authority should be deemed to have fixed 62 as the limit of permits under Section 47 (3) and it was not necessary for the Regional Transport Authority to take a fresh decision while filling in the seven vacancies on the route. The second contention is that the grant of permits to the 5 persons was not a nullity and the writ petition of Kanhaiya Lal should not have been entertained by the learned Single Judge as he had not filed an appealagainst the order before the Transport Appellate Tribunal.
8. In Smt. Shakuntala Devi v. T. A. T.Jaipur Civil Special Appeal No. 113of 1969, D/- 28-1-1970 (Raj.), we haveheld that even if permits are grantedon a new route by the RegionalTransport Authority without fixing the limitunder Section 47 (3), the grant of permits isnot a nullity and the remedy of the aggrieved persons is to challenge the grant ofpermits by filing an appeal under Section 64before the Transport Appellate Tribunal.In view of this decision it is unnecessary togo into the question as to whether or notit was necessary for the Regional TransportAuthority to refix the limits in the presentcase before granting further permits to the5 persons. It is not the practice of thisCourt to entertain writ petitions challengingappealable orders directly unless the ordersare without jurisdiction. The writ petitionfiled by Kanhaiya Lal should not have beenentertained.
9. We accordingly allow the Special Appeal No. 92 of 1969, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the writ petition so far as Hari Narain, appellant, is concerned.
10. It is necessary to state some further facts for the disposal of Special Appeal No. 98 of 1969. One Govind Narain filed an application for the grant of a permit on the Jaipur-Sikar amalgamated route on 13-4-1967. This application was published on 13-7-1967 and objections were invited. Before the time for filing these objections had expired, the Regional Transport Authority decided to convene a meeting for the consideration of 8 applications for grant of permits on this route, namely, those of Abdul Aziz, Hari Narain, T. C. Soni and five others. The agenda for the meeting was published on 1-7-1967 (Annexura. P/2). It was mentioned in this agenda that any person, who claims that his application has been pending prior to the applications included in the agenda, may also attend the said meeting and represent his case.
11. The meeting was to be held on 4th, 5th and 7th August, 1967. This meeting was not held on those dates and was adjourned to 15th September 1967. On 11-9-1967 Govind Narain filed an application (Annexure P/3) before the Regional Transport Authority praying that his application should also be considered at the time of granting fresh permits on the Jaipur-Sikar amalgamated route. No order was passed on this application at that time, but another agenda was published on 5-10-1967 (Annexure P/4) in which it was mentioned that the applications published on 5-1-1967, 9-3-1967, 23-2-1967, 11-11-1966, 9-3-1967 and 13-7-1967 for the Jaipur-Sikar amalgamated route will be considered at a meeting of the Regional Transport Authority on 6th, 7th and 8th November, 1967. The applications of Hari Narain, T. C. Soni andGovind Narian were published on 23-2-1967. 9-3-1967 and 13-3-1967, respectively, and were thus included in this agenda.
12. The meeting fixed for 14th, 15th and 16th September 1967 was adjourned to 19th October 1967 and on the latter date 5 permits were issued to Abdul Aziz, Hari Narain, T. C. Soni, Radhey Shyam Goel and Mohammad Yusuf.
13. Govind Narain whose application was not considered at the meeting held on 19-10-1967 filed S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 66 of 1968 challenging the grant of the above 5 permits. This writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge, and all these 5 permits were quashed. A direction was issued to the Regional Transport Authority to consider the applications of these 5 persons along with that of the petitioner and all other persons whose applications might become ripe for hearing.
14. Against the above judgment Hari Narain has filed Special Appeal No. 98 of 1969.
15. It is contended on behalf of Hari Narain, appellant, that when the Regional Transport Authority published the agenda on 1-7-1967 for the meeting to be convened on 4th, 5th and 7th August 19671 to consider the applications for grant of fresh permits on Jaipur-Sikar amalgamated route the application of Govind Narain was not ripe as it had not even been published by them and, therefore, Govind Narain was not entitled to have his application considered at the meeting to be held on 4th, 5th and 7th August 1967 or the adjourned meetings which were a continuation, of that meeting.
16. On behalf of Govind Narain it is contended that as on 19-10-1967, when the applications were actually considered, Govind Narain's application had also become ripe it should also have been considered along with the other applications. Further, it is argued that on 5-10-1967 agenda for the meeting to be convened on 6th, 7th and 8th November 1967 was published and in this agenda it was mentioned that the application of Govind Narain, Hari Narain and T. C. Soni would be considered along with other applications and he was misled by it and, therefore, did not attend the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority held on 19-10-1967 to represent his case.
17. The question which arises for determination in this case is what applications the Regional Transport Authority is bound to consider at a particular meeting. In Shivcharan Lal v. Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur, 1968 Raj LW 461, Kan Singh J. expressed the opinion that the Regional Transport Authority should dispose of all such pending applications as actually become ripe for hearing by the time it decides to convene a meeting for the consideration of such applications. We are respectfully in agreement with this view. Although the observation is obiter in Shivcharan Lal's case, the decision in Surendra Pratap v. Regional Transport Authority (S. B. Civil Writ Petn. No. 469 of 1968, DA 31-7-1969 (Raj.)) is based on this criterion. This view is consistent with the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court of which one of us was a member in Lallu Narain Yadav v. Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur, on a reference by Kan Singh J. (in Civil Writ No. 676 of 1967 D/-4-11-1969, Raj.).
18. Applying the above principle to the present case, the application of Govind Narain was not ripe for hearing on 1st July 1967 when the agenda for the meeting which the Regional Transport Authority convened for consideration of applications for fresh permits on the Jaipur-Sikar amalgamated route was published. Govind Narain was, therefore, not entitled to get the permit of Hari Narain quashed. We accordingly allow Special Appeal No. 98 of 1969 and quash the order of the learned Single Judge so far as Hari Narain is concerned.
19. We may mention here that 3 appeals were filed before the Transport Appellate Tribunal against the grant of 5 permits mentioned above. The Transport Appellate Tribunal allowed these appeals and set aside all the 5 permits by its order dated 7-10-69 and directed the Regional Transport Authority to reconsider the applications of the appellants and the respondents before it along with other pending applications which might become ripe for consideration. Hari Narain has filed Writ Petition No. 74 of 1970 against the decision of the Transport Appellate Tribunal. This writ petition has not yet been admitted.
20. We have mentioned above that the Regional Transport Authority fixed the limit on the Jaipur-Sikar amalgamated route at 69 on 27-11-1968. A revision application was filed against the fixation of this limit to the State Transport Authority, which was dismissed. Now Writ Petition No. 1458 of 1969 has been filed in this Court against the fixation of the limit. A stay order has been passed in that writ petition.
21. In the circumstances of the case, we leave both the parties to bear their own costs.