Jagat Narayan, C.J.
1. This is a special appeal by Lallu Singh and Bheru Ram against an order of a learned single Judge of this Court dismissing their writ petition filed against the grant of permits to Shankar Lal and Sahi Ram on Nokha-Panchu-Dharnokh route which completely overlaps their Nokha-Panchu route, they being exising operators on this route.
2. Sahi Ram, Shankar Lal and Ganesh Ram applied for grant of permits on the Nokha-Pauchu-Dhamokh route. Lallu Singh and Bheru Ram made a representation to the Regional Transport Authority in writing against the grant of permits on this route. The representation was unsigned. Bheru Ram and Lallu Singh were represented by counsel on the date of hearing before the Regional Transport Authority, but the latter was not heard on the ground that the representation was not signed. Permits were granted to Shankar Lal and Sahi Ram. Bheru Ram and Lallu Singh appealed to the Transport Appellate Tribunal, but the appeal was rejected on the ground that the representation was unsigned. Then they filed the present writ petition which was rejected on the same ground.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. Section 57 (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act runs as follows:--
'57 (4). No representation in connection with an application referred to in Subsection (3) shall be considered by the Regional Transport Authority unless it is made in writing before the appointed date and unless a copy thereof is furnished simultaneously to the applicant by the person making such representation.'
A perusal of the above sub-section goes to show that what is required is that the representation should be in writing. It is not prescribed that it should be signed by the person making the representation. We are accordingly of the opinion that the representation filed by Lallu Singh and Bheru Ram fulfils the requirement of Section 57 (4) and should have been considered by the Regional Transport Authority.
4. In this connection we may refer to the decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Vel Raj, Civil Revn. No. 134 of 1970 D/- 10-1-1972 (Raj) in which it was held that an unsigned notice under Section 80, C.P.C., is valid as that section only prescribes a notice in writing giving certain particulars, but does not prescribe that it should be signed.
5. On behalf of Sahi Ram it was contended that he did not receive a copy of the representation made by Lallu Singh and Bheru Ram. Reliance was placed on an affidavit filed by him before the Transport Appellate Tribunal. We have perused the affidavit. All that Sahi Ram has stated in it is that he did not receive a copy of the representation. A copy of the representation made by Lallu Singh and Bheru Ram has been filed before us. It is at page 22 of the paper book. It was sent to Ganesh Ram, Shankar Lal, Sahi Ram and the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner, by registered post acknowledgement due. This fact is noted on the representation itself, which is typed. The four acknowledgement receipts which are signed by these per-sons were filed by the appellants before the Transport Appellate Tribunal. We had sent for the record and have perused the acknowledgement receipts. They bear the signatures of the recipients including those of Sahi Ram and Shankar Lal. Shankar Lal is present in Court and he admits having received a copy of the representation. Sahi Ram is not present, but we have no doubt that the acknowledgement receipts bears his signatures in English. On the Vakalatnama filed before the Transport Appellate Tribunal he no doubt affixed his signatures in Hindi. But no affidavit has been filed by him to the effect that he does not affix his signatures in English also.
6. We are accordingly satisfied that both Sahi Ram and Shankar Lal received representations in accordance with Section 57(4).
7. We find that the Regional Transport Authority did not fix the limit on the route before issuing permits. It thereby contravened the provisions of Section 47 (3). It was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in R. O. Naidu v. Addl. S. T. A. T. Madras, AIR 1969 SC 1130, that before granting permits on new routes the Regional Transport Authority must fix the limit under Section 47 (3). As this mandatory provision of law was not complied with, we cancel the permits granted in favour of Sahi Ram and Shankar Lal.
8. We remand the case to the Regional Transport Authority with the direction that the applications of Sahi Ram and Shankar Lal shall be considered along with the application for extension filed by Lallu Singh and Bheru Ram after fixing limit on the route under Section 47 (3).
9. The special appeal is allowed as indicated above without any order as to costs.