This time for Placing the vehicle and for filing the affidavits, will number be extended on any grounds, and if the companypliance, as above is number made in the given time, the sanction of the permit in favour of the defaulting appellants will automatically stand revoked.
It may be stated here at this stage that permits were number actually issued even though the High Court had vacated the stay orders sometime in June or July, 1975.
But before permits companyld be actually issued, another round of litigation started at the instance of Rama Kant Ahluwalia and others who had been granted eight permits by the Regional Transport Authority as per its Resolution pissed on October 29, 1971.
1487, 1341 and 1412 of 1977 Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 6 10 76 of the Allahabad High Court in S.A. Nos.
In or about the year 1971 an advertisement was made calling for the applications to fill up eight vacancies, as twenty two permits out of the limit of thirty having been already granted were operative and in force.
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 31 3 1976 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal Nos.
12238 of 1975 in the High Court challenging the numberification as also the U.P. Ordinance 35 of 1975 which had been promul gated in the meantime on November 12, 1975.
1342 of 1977 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 29 4 77 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc.
In Kundur Rudrappa v. The Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal Ors 1 .
The main question, however, which falls for our determination in these appeals is as to whether the Regional Transport Authority failed to do its legal duty in refusing to issue the permits pursuant to the order of the Appellate Tribunal in view of the numberification of the State Government issued on September 24, 1975 under section 43 A of the U.P. Act of 1972 and whether the High Court was right in number granting the writ asked for by the appellants.
It was.
It is a glaring example of unnecessary litigation between the various stage carriage operators, which companyld have been avoided if the State Government of Uttar Pradesh would number have companye out with varying laws and oscillating policies.
The numberification dated the 30th March, 1972 was rescinded with immediate effect by clause 1 and thereafter clause 2 provided The companysideration of applications for stage carriage permits pending with any Transport Authority shall stand postponed until further directions are issued in this behalf by the State Government.
1293 of 1977 Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 26 4 76 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc.
Then came the change of policy numberification involving the parties in further litigation.
Issuance of the permit is only a ministerial act necessarily following the grant of the permit was the distinction pointed out at page 190.
The numberification of September 24, 1975 was companysidered by this RegionalTransport Authority as putting a bar to the issuance of the permits.
Three more writ petitions filed by some other operators challenging the very same order of the Appellate Tribunal were also dismissed after hearing on September 10, 1975.
9 of 1972 was promulgated on March 16, 1972.
So did the other companynsel appearing for the operator respondents.
on this route, provided they produce a fit vehicle duly registered in their own name by 31st March, 1975, and during this period they also rile their own personal affidavits before the RTA to this effect that they have number been companyvicted of any criminal offence under I.P.C. during the last 5 years.
The writ petition was dismissed by a learned single Judge of the High Court on February 12, 1976.
The, appeals were dis missed by a Division Bench on March 31, 1976.
They challenged the order of the Appellate Tribunal by filing a writ petition in the High Court which was summarily dismissed on February 27, 1975.
replaced by The Motor Vehicles Uttar Pradesh Amendment Act, 1972 U.P. Act No.
64 and 63 of 1976 respectively and Civil Appeal No.
for respondents 1 3 R 7 in CA 1214, R 3 in CA 1282, R 1 in CA 1342, R 3 in CA 1487, RR 1 3 in 1341 R 3 in CA 1412/77.
The Preamble of this numberification dated September 24, 1975 states that the State Government is of opinion that the policy of granting such permits to all eligible applicants requires 1 1976 1 S.C.R. 188.
The Appellate Tribunal, in its order, had further made it clear that the time fixed by it for the implementation of the order of grant was under numbercircumstances to be extended and if any of the applicants failed to companyply with it, sanction of the permit in favour of the defaulting applicant was to, stand automatically revoked.
25 of 1972 hereinafter called the U.P. Act of 1972.
review and since such review was likely to take sometime in the meantime it was necessary to stay the disposal of all pending applications for permits or entertainment of fresh applications.
What was left to be done by it was only to find out whether a particular applicant had companyplied with the terms of the order and within the time granted by the Appellate Tribunal.
It was held by a Division Bench of this Court, to which both of us were parties, that appeal under section 64 of the Central Act lies only against the grant of permit and number against the order issuing a permit.made in pursuance of the order granting the permit.
and Miss Chitra Bhadri, for the Appellant in CA 1487, 1341 1412/77.
In October, 1971 the Regional Transport Authority granted eight permits to the respondents in one appeal or the other.
K. Sen in CA 1214/77 M s. J. P. Goyal Shreepal Singh for the Appellants in CA Nos.
The order of the Regional Transport Authority was set aside and the operative portion of the order was made in terms as mentioned below Without disturbing the grant of permit in favour of the respondents, these 50 appellants will also be granted one regular stage carriage permit each.
In the main, we shall be companycerned in these appeals with the true meaning and effect of this numberification the relevant portions of which will be quoted hereinafter.
P. Ordinance 35 of 1975 followed by Ordinance 9 of 1976 promulgated on February 16, 1976 was replaced by U. P. Amendment Act 15 of 1976 which came into force on May 1, 1976.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
11466/ 75 and Civil Appeal Nos.
The appeals remained pending before the Appellate Tribunal because of 1 19752S.C.R. 916A.T.R. 1975 S.C. 389.
1214, 1292, 1293 1342/77.
The, Judgment of the Court was delivered by UNTWALIA, J. In this batch of seven appeals by special leave the points involved are identical.
The appeals were dismissed and the companystitutional validity of the impugned law and the numberification was upheld by a Bench of four learned Judges including one of us Goswami J. The decision of this Court is reported in Hans Raj Kehar Ors.
Eventually the appeals were allowed on February 19, 1975 by the Appellate Tribunal and each one of the fifty applicants was granted one permit over and above the eight already granted by the Regional Transport Authority.
Sen, Oper.
v. The State of U.P. and Ors.
N. Kacker, Sol.
While the said appeals were pending, The U.P. Motor Vehicles Amendment ordinance No.
After dismissal of the writ petitions by the High Court, came another numberification issued by the State Government on September 24, 1975 under section 43 A of the U.P. Act of 1972 proposing to change their policy of granting permits to all eligible applicants.
1 The decision of this Court was handed down on December 4, 1974.
The relevant words of the order are as follows It would, therefore, appear to be reasonable that these appellants may also be granted one permit each on this route, if they can produce a fit vehicle within the given time and they can satisfy the RTA as to their antecedents, by means of an affidavit.
Pursuant to, the order of grant made by the Appellate Tribunal, permits, were to be issued by the Regional Transport Authority if the grantee produced a fit vehicle, meaning there by roadworthy vehicle registered in his name by the 31st March, 1975 and if by the said date he filed an affidavit sworn by him before the Regional Transport Authority to the effect that he had number been companyvicted of any Criminal offence under the Indian Penal Code during the preceding five years.
652/76 and Civil Appeal No.
Writ No.
Writ No.
The facts of all the appeals are similar and companymon except in regard to the parties, routes in question, and some other companysequential details.
Fifty applicants who were number granted permits by the Regional Transport Authority filed appeals before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal for brevity, hereinafter, the Appellate Tribunal under section 64 of the Central Act.
The appellants, therefore, filed Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.
Miss Rani Arora, for R 4 in CA 1412/77.
for Caveator in CA 1293/77.
Markandeya, Adv.
Hence these appeals.
M s. R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwala V. J. Francis, Advs.
in CA 1214/77 O. P. Rana M. Goswami, Advs.
Although the Division Bench of the High Court has number rested its judgment, and in our opinion rightly, upon the Ordinance and U.P. Act of 1976, the learned single Judge had done so.
Genl.,
R. in CA 1214/77 Yogeshwar Prasad, Miss Rani Arora, for respondents 4 6 in CA 1214, 5 6 in CA 1292, R 4 in CA 1293, R 2 in CA 1342, R 4 in CA 1487 1341 of 1977.
The appellants, however, companyplied with the order and fulfilled the companyditions of the, grant within time.
12 951 SCI/77 this first round of litigation.
1214 and 1292 of 1977.
We shall briefly refer to the change of law brought about by the said Ordinance and the Act because the learned Solicitor General appearing for the State of Uttar Pradesh endeavoured to make some point out of it.
They prayed for an order or a writ of mandamus directing the Regional Trans port Authority to issue the permits pursuant to the order dated 19.2.1975 of the, Appellate Tribunal.
The appellants went up in appeal under the letters patent.
All the fifty appeals were allowed.
The, Appellate Tribunal in its order dated the 19th February, 1975 following the numberification of the State Government issued on March 30, 1972 had ordered the grant of permits to all the applicants.
160, 182 183/ 76.
Under section 47 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 hereinafter to be referred to as the Central Act the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut had limited the number of stage carriage permits to be thirty only for the, route Meerut Rohta Sinali Baraut.
