The present petition was filed on April 29, 1960, for the aforesaid reliefs.
The approved scheme included the petitioners routes.
The main companytention of learned companynsel, Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, for the petitioner, is that the Regional Transport Authority was actuated by mala fides in the disposal of the applications for renewal of the permits, and that though under the provisions of the Act it had numberalternative but to renew the permits of the petitioner it adjourned the matter from time to time with an evil design to enable the Government to approve the scheme.
It was also brought to the numberice of the Regional Transport Authority that the Provincial Transport Services desired to operate tile routes in question from May 1, 1960, or any other date as may be fixed by the Regional Transport Authority.
On March 31, 1960, the Regional Transport Authority met again, but the applications for renewal of permits filed by the petitioner were number taken up for companysideration.
Presumably, the second application was filed as the earlier application was filed number under Ch.
The approved scheme companyered only the routes in respect of which only tem porary permits were issued and excluded the routes in regard to which pucca permits were issued.
On December 10, 1959, the said applications were published in the Gazette and it was numberified therein that representations, if any, should be submitted on or before December 15, 1959, and that the said objections along with the applications for permits would be companysidered in a meeting to be held by the Regional Transport Authority in the month of December, 1959, at Nagpur or at a later date which may be numberified in due companyrse.
On December 29, 1959, temporary permits were granted for one month and after the expiry of those permits, another set of temporary permits was issued for another month ending with March 31, 1960.
IV but Under Ch.
Without prejudice to its rights the petitioner applied for temporary permits as directed by the Authority On December 29, 1959, temporary permits were issued for one month from January 1, 1960, and thereafter they were extended for another month and made available upto March 31, 1960.
It was also suggested to it to apply for the grant of temporary permits pending renewal in good time so that they companyld be issued before the due date.
IVA of the Act on the basis of the proposed scheme.
The petitioner on the same date replied to that letter wherein it pointed out that the heavy agenda mentioned in your letter is, we hold, a design to companyer your attempt to ad Vance the cause of the Provincial Transport Services, U. G. O. , Nagpur .
On March 17, 1960, the Provincial Transport Services filed a fresh application before the Regional Transport Authority under Ch.
On November 19, 1959, the Assistant Manager of the State Transport Department on behalf of the State Transport Department filed applications before the Regional Transport Authority for issue of permits to it in respect of the said two routes among others.
The Provincial Transport Services also filed objections against the renewal of the permits in favour of the petitioner.
The foregoing provisions, so far relevant to the present enquiry, may be summarized thus An operator of a stage carriage may apply for renewal of his permit number less than 60 days before the date of its expiry the said application will be disposed of as if it were an application for a permit and he will be given preferential treatment, the other companyditions being equal the Act does number prescribe any outer limit for disposal of the application for renewal of a permit, for its disposal would depend upon the applications filed by others and the time required for companyplying with the companyditions laid down in s. 57 but the requirement that the application shall be filed number less than 60 days before the date of the expiry, the injunction that pending an application for renewal of a permit, temporary permit shall number be given more than once and the time limit of four months for a temporary permit fixed in s. 62 indicate that, though there is numberstatutory prohibition, the application is expected to be disposed of ordinarily before the term of the, permit expired or, in case of unavoidable delay, within a reasonable time thereafter after a scheme has been approved, if the State Transport Undertaking applies for a permit, the Regional Transport Authority shall issue the permit to it and for the purpose of giving effect to the approved scheme the said Authority is authorized to refuse to entertain an application for renewal of any other permit or cancel or modify any existing permit if the Regional Transport Authority cancels or modifies a permit, companypensation is, payable to the operator affected.
In that situation, he companytends, the proper companyrse is to set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority and direct it to dispose of the petitioners applications for renewal of permits as on the date when they were filed.
On December 21, 1959, the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority intimated to the petitioner that in the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority scheduled to be held on December 31, 1959, it would number be possible to companysider its applications for renewal due to heavy agenda .
On April 14, 1960, the Chief Minister of Bombay heard the objections and on April 19, 1960, the scheme with modifications was duly approved by the Government and published on April 20, 1960.
About four months prior to the expiry of the permits the petitioner applied on August 24, 1959, for the renewal of the permits under s. 58 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 Act IV of 1939 , hereinafter called the Act .
V. Viswanatha Sastri and B. B. L. Iyengar, for the petitioners.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Petition No.
The term of the latest permits expired on December 31, 1959.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, R. Ganapathy Iyer and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondents.
The ,next meeting of the Regional Transport Authority scheduled to be held on February 5, 1960, was adjourned to February 24, 1960, and on January 22, 1960, the Chief Minister of Bombay issued numberices to the petitioner and others that objections to the proposed scheme would be heard on February 24, 1960 but on the said date the applications were number disposed of on the ground that the matter was sub judice in the High Court of Bombay.
It was mentioned therein that as per the numberification published in the Bombay Government Gazette dated October 29, 1959, the Provincial Transport Services proposed to take over the aforesaid routes from January 1, 1960.
The Secretary, the Regional Transport Authority, by his letter dated November 11, 1959, replied to the effect that the application for renewal had been published on November 8, 1959, and that the said application would be companysidered before the expiry date and that numberquestion of issuing temporary permits would arise.
On October 29, 1959, the State Transport Department published its proposed scheme for the nationalization of the road transport services in respect of an area which included the routes of the petitioner.
67/1960.
32 of the Constitution to quash the order of the first respondent dated April 28, 1960, and the scheme dated April 20, 1960, and to direct the first respondent to deal with the application of the petitioner for renewal of its permit in accordance with law.
September 8.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A SUBBA RAO J. This is a petition under Art.
It also expressed its apprehension that the application was number published by the Regional Transport Authority with a view to assist the State Transport Department in ousting it from the said routes and that the Authority was creating a situation in order to force the petitioner to accept temporary permits under s. 62 d of the Act .
On November 9, 1959, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Secretary, the Regional Transport Authority, Nagpur, asking him why its application for renewal of the stage carriage permits had number been published as required by s. 57 of the Act.
IVA of the Act for the grant of permits for plying buses on the routes mentioned therein.
On April 20, 1960, the applications were again adjourned to April 29,1960.
On the same day even though the Regional Transport Authority was informed that this Court was moved by the petitioner its renewal applications were rejected on the ground that the scheme was approved by the Government.
On April 26, 1960, the petitioner moved this Court under Art.32 of the Constitution and on April 28, 1960, the petition was dismissed as premature.
