It is apparent that Item 3 involved two questions for determination of the R.T.A. a whether the route proposed by the appellants and others should be opened, and b if so, to whom, amongst the applicants, should permit or permits, depending upon the number of permits he.
Nevertheless, the T.A., follow ing the procedure laid down in s. 57 of the Act, published these applications, to which objections.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated March 13, 1969 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.
Appeals having been filed before the Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal reversed the order of the R.T.A. and granted permits to the three appellants.
1 the R.T.A. had already introduced the new bus route and then had invited applications for permits.
should decide upon, should be granted.
R.T.A. lay under s. 64 a , and that company sequently, the Tribunal had numberjurisdiction to entertain such appeals and grant permits to the appellants.
The R.T.A, however, rejected them all on the ground that there was after all numberneed for the new route.
and grant of permits thereon.
a direct service from Meerut to Dankaur.
On these facts the question was, whether a person, whose application is rejected by the R.T.A. on the ground that there was numberneed for a new route, in spite of his decision previously arrived at that such a route was necessary, companyld appeal under s. 64 a against such rejection.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
earlier referred to.
These applications came up for companysideration in the meeting held before the R.T.A. on July 28, 1965 when Item 3 of the Agenda for that meeting was To pronounce decision regarding recognition and classification of M eerut to Dankaur via Hapur Gulsothi Sikandarabad route.
This was, therefore, number a case where the R.T.A. had already decided upon opening the new route, fixed the number of permits necessary for such a route and then invited applications from operators.
The respondents thereupon filed writ petitions in the High Court for quashing the order of the Tribunal companytending that numberappeal against the order of the.
This appeal is directed against this order.
34 applicants applied for permits.
K. Daphtary,, Yogeshwar Prasad, S.K. Davon and S. Bagga, for the appellants.
were raised amongst others by those who were operating on the routes.
R. Gokhale, J.P. Goyal, Ilyas Hussain and V.C. Prashar, for respondents Nos.
1278 of 1969.
1060 of 1967.
the companyclusion that it does number, and thereupon rejects his application, whether his order is one under s. 48 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 4 of 1939 and is, therefore, appealable under s. 64 a of that Act ?
to examine the question whether an applicaNT should or should number be granted the permit.
order.
After hearing the applicants and those who opposed them, the R.T.A. was satisfied that there was numbersufficient demand for such a direct service, and therefore, there was numberjustification for opening the proposed new route.
There were, however, two routes which were being operated, namely, one from Meerut to Bulandsharhar and the other from Siana to Dankaur, one crossing the other, so that if one wanted to go from Meerut to Dankaur there was numberdirect service, and therefore, he would have first to travel in the bus running from Meerut to Bulandshahar, get down at a place near Gulsothi and catch the bus running from Siana to Dankaur.
The route involved in this case was the one between Meerut and Dankaur which had numberdirect passenger bus service.
1 and 2.
This was the position when the appellants, amongst others, applied to the Regional Transport Authority for permits to operate.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat, J. The question arising in this appeal, by certificate, may be stated thus When an applicant applies for a permit to run a passenger bus service on the ground that the route for which he applies, though one number yet opened, is necessary in public interest, but the Regional Transport Authority companyes to.
Having arrived at that companyclusion the question of granting or number granting permits to individual applicants did number arise and he rejected the applications of the appellants and other applicants.
heard the writ petitions in the first instance, dismissed them, but on appeal against his order the Division Bench of the High Court came to the companyclusion that numberappeal against the said order of the R.T.A. lay under s. 64 a , and accordingly, allowed the writ petitions and quashed the Tribunals.
