From the Judgment and Order dated the 1st July, 1968 of the Patna High Court in C. W. J. C. No.
The application was made within the time fixed.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BEG, J. This appeal by certificate from a judgment of the High Court at Patna companyes before us in the following circumstances An application made by one Ram Autar Lal Jain before the Chhotanagpur Regional Transport Authority hereinafter referred to as the RTA for grant of a stage carriage permit on a particular route.
Mangtulal Tulshiyan challenged this order of the Minister before the High Court of Patna which set it aside and directed the Minister to rehear only the petitioners who had filed revision petitions and number those who had number companyplained against the previous order before the Minister.
The Minister, on this occasion, granted the permit in favour of Bijoy Bahadur Singh who is respondent No.
But, before the application companyld be companysidered Ram Autar Lal Jain died leaving one widow and two sons as his survivors, heirs and legal representatives.
Ram Autar Lal Jains heirs formed a partnership firm called M s. Ram Autar Lal Jain and an application was made before the RTA for substitution of the firm in place of Ram Autar Lal Jain deceased, the original applicant, so that the firm companyld prosecute the application before the RTA.
V. Gupte, U. P. Singh and K. N. Seshav, for respondent No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In the companyrse of his order, the Minister rejected the appellants application for permit on two grounds firstly, the appellant number being an heir to Ram Autar Lal Jain, should number have been allowed to prosecute the application before the RTA and, secondly, that the appellant did number satisfy the criterion set up by the RTA in so far as the appellant was neither a new comer number a small operator.
Four revision petitions having been filed against this order, the Minister companycerned remanded the case to the RTA for a reconsideration after hearing all the parties which had appeared before the RTA on April 23, 1965.
and ii that, the parties in whose favour the permit had been given bad failed to Produce the vehicle within the time allowed by the RTA.
The matter did number, however, rest with the decision of the RTA but was taken up in appeal before the State Transport Authority by as many as four different parties.
The writ petition was summarily dismissed by the High Court.
The RTA allowed the substitution but split up the route into two parts and granted one part to the appellant and the other part to the Respondent No.
The State Transport Authority set aside the order of the RTA on various grounds, such as i that, the route companyld number be split up .
4 in this appeal on the ground that he was companypetent and qualified and satisfied the requirement which the RTA had laid down, that is to say, that a new comer and a small operator should be introduced on the relevant route and also on the ground that Government should try to break monopolies.
1 to 3.
The appellant took the matter to the Patna High Court by means of a writ petition.
2606 of 1969.
363 of 1968.
C. Chagla, K. K. Sinha, S. K. Sinha and B. B. Sinha, for the appellant.
C. Prasad, for respondent Nos.
It did number go into the question of legality of substitution of the appellant firm in place of Ram Autar Lal Jain.
The State Transport Authority granted the permit to one Mangtulal Tulshiyan.
