Skip to content


Badrilal and ors. Vs. the Transport Appellate Tribunal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Writ Petn. No. 332 of 1963
Judge
Reported inAIR1966Raj271
ActsMotor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Sections 57(4) and 64
AppellantBadrilal and ors.
RespondentThe Transport Appellate Tribunal and ors.
Appellant Advocate J.P. Jain, Adv.
Respondent Advocate M.M. Vyas, Govt. Adv.
DispositionRevision allowed
Excerpt:
- .....not appear before the regional transport authority to press them.4. against the grant of these 8 permits banshidhar and naraindas filed an appeal before the transport appellate tribunal. a preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the petitioners that banshidhar and naraindas were not entitled to challenge the grant of permits to them before the transport appellate tribunal as they had not filed any objection against the grant of permits to them before the regional transport authority. this objection was overruled by the transport appellate tribunal on the ground that banshidhar and naraindas had objected to the grant of permits to seven of the applicants earlier. having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned government advocate i am of the opinion that the.....
Judgment:

Jagat Narayan, J.

1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by five operators to whom permits were granted by the Regional Transport Authority for plying their buses between Sikar and Renwat via Palsana, Dukia, Govti, Khatu and Bay against the order of the Transport Appellate Tribunal directing them not to ply their buses via Bay

2. Seventeen applications were filed for grant of permits along this route. Seven of these applications were published in the Gazette dated 30-8-62 (annexure 2). Against the grant of permits to these 7 applicants Banshidhar and Naraindas filed an objection (annexure 4) on 25-9-62. Subsequently 10 more applications for the grant of permits along this route were published in the Gazette dated 15-11-62. These included the applications of the five petitioners. No objection was filed against the grant of permits to these 10 applicants

3. All these 17 applications were considered by the Regional Transport Authority in its meeting dated 29-4-63 and permits were granted to 8 persons including the five petitioners (annexure 5). Banshidhar and Naraindas who filed objections against the grant of permits to 7 of the applicants did not appear before the Regional Transport Authority to press them.

4. Against the grant of these 8 permits Banshidhar and Naraindas filed an appeal before the Transport Appellate Tribunal. A preliminary objection was taken on behalf of the petitioners that Banshidhar and Naraindas were not entitled to challenge the grant of permits to them before the Transport Appellate Tribunal as they had not filed any objection against the grant of permits to them before the Regional Transport Authority. This objection was overruled by the Transport Appellate Tribunal on the ground that Banshidhar and Naraindas had objected to the grant of permits to seven of the applicants earlier. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate I am of the opinion that the decision of the Transport Appellate Tribunal in this behalf is erroneous. Section 57(4) of Motor Vehicles Act runs as follows:--

'No representation in connection with an application referred to in Sub-section (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.'

5. It is clear from the wordings of the above section that no representation can be considered by the Regional Transport Authority unless a copy thereof is furnished to the appli cants against whose applications it is made. The object underlying the provision is that die applicants should have an opportunity of meeting the objection. No copy of the representation made by Banshidhar and Naraindas was ever handed over to the present petitioners,

6. They aid not know what objection had been raised by Banshidhar and Naraindas and could not be in a position to meet it when the matter came up for consideration before the Regional Transport Authority. Banshidhar and Naraindas were accordingly not entitled to make any representation to that Authority against the grant of permits to the petitioners under Section 57(4). It follows from this that they were not entitled to maintain any appeal under Section 84(f) against the grant of permits to the petitioners. The representation made by them on 25-9-62 could not be treated as a representation against the grant of permits to the 10 applicants whose applications were published on a subsequent date unless copies of it were served on the latter

7. The Transport Appellate Tribunal also erred in holding that permits had not been granted to the petitioners via Bay merely because the name of Bay was not specifically mentioned in the order granting the permits. In the applications for grant of permits filed by the petitioners which were published in the Gazatte dated 15-11-62 (annexure 3) the route for which they had applied was shown as via Palsana, Dukia, Govti, Khatu and Bay. There is nothing in the order of the Regional Transport Authority indicating that the permit which it was granting was not along the route applied for. Moreover the Regional Transport Authority could not grant a permit along a route not applied for.

8. I accordingly allow the writ petition,and set aside the order of the Transport Appellate Tribunal In the circumstances of the case,I direct that parties shall bear their own costsof this writ petition.


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