Madhab Chandra and Others vs Secretary, Regional Transport Authority and Others

Ram Labhaya, J.—This order shall dispose of Civil Rules Nos. 184 and 192 to 198 of 1954 and another set of rules to be dealt with later. The petitioners in these rules had permits, in respect of Stage Carriages authorising them to ply on Dhubri-Bilasipara-Fakiragram-Kokrajhra-Chapar and Dhubri-Jogighopa Routes in Goalpara District. Their case is that they were plying their carriages since 1950 and renewal of permits was refused to them on 28-2-1954. As a result, the three petitions for suitable writs were moved in this Court. They formed the subject-matter of Rules Nos. 27, 38 & 39 of 1954. These rules were disposed of by an order of this Court dated 14-5-54.

The rules were discharged on the ground that there were no valid petitions on which the Regional Transport Authority could take any action under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was observed in the order that if valid petitions were made, in view of the elucidation of the law in that judgment, the authorities concerned shall dispose them of in accordance with the provisions contained in Motor Vehicles Act. In pursuance of this judgment, fresh applications were put in by the petitioners in these rules on 26-7-54. The Regional Transport Authority held a meeting on 27th and 28th of September 1954.

The petitioners were asked to attend that meeting. After this on 23-10-1954, the petitioners were informed that they were granted periodic Stage Carriage permits for plying on Dhubri-Balajan-Tamarhat-Gosaigaon-Kachugaon routes for a period of three years with, effect from 3-11-1951. Nothing was said about the application, for permits to ply on the old route. The petitioners had filed applications for permits to ply on the new route also when applications were invited.

But it is contended on their behalf that their applications for the new routes were without prejudice to their applications for their original route and these petitions had to be disposed of according to law. They have still not being dealt with and no orders have been passed on them.

On behalf of the Regional Transport Authority, an affidavit in opposition has been put in. According to this affidavit, the applications for permits to ply on the old route dated 26-7-54 have not yet been disposed of though it is averred that the petitioner in Rule No. 184 and other members of his Association who are petitioners in the other cases accepted and agreed to the arrangement decided upon and also utilised their permits for plying on the new route. The applications for the new route were without prejudice to the applications for permits to ply on the original route.

Since the petitioners had been refused permits to ply on their original route and their applications made in July, 1954 were pending they took the opportunity of applying for permits when the new route was advertised. They have also taken the permits given to them but this conduct would not preclude them from pressing for the disposal of their applications for permits to ply on the original route. These applications have to be disposed of It is conceded in the counter-affidavit that these applications are still pending.

The learned Counsel for the Regional Trims-port Authority has contended that the old route has not yet been advertised and it is for this reason that the applications have not been disposed of. He has argued that these petitions would be disposed of if and when the route is advertised. But this is not a correct position for the Regional Transport Authority to adopt. It assumes that the Regional Transport Authority may or may not advertise the old route and if it decides to advertise the route then it will dispose of the applications. The legal position is clear. u/s 57, Motor Vehicles Act, the Regional Transport Authority has no such option.

An application for a contract carriage permit or a private carrier''s permit may be made at any time. An application for a stage carriage permit or a public carrier''s permit must be made under Clause (2) not less than six weeks before the date on which it is desired that the permit shall take effect, or if the Regional Transport Authority appoints dates for the receipt of such applications on such dates. The Regional Transport Authority never fixed any date inviting applications for the old routes nor did it fix any date acting under Clause (2) of Section 57. The petitioners in all these cases did put in petitions six weeks before the date on which they wanted their permits to take effect. These are valid petitions and the Regional Transport Authority had no justification for not considering and disposing of these applications according to law. There has already been considerable delay in the disposal of these petitions. We desist from making any observation on the merits of these applications at this stage. The only direction that can appropriately issue in these circumstances is that all the pending petitions for permits to ply on the old route shall be disposed of without, any undue delay and as promptly as possible and we order accordingly. It should be seen that the petitioners are not prejudiced by any avoidable delay in the disposal of their applications.

The same question arises in the second set of Rules Nos. 199 to 207 of 1954 though the facts are slightly different, in these cases the petitioners applied on 20th July that their petitions filed in February 1954 be treated as applications for fresh permits. These applications also have not been disposed of so far, and no different reasons have been stated in justification of the inaction on the part of the Regional Transport Authority so far as these cases are concerned. The situation in the rules being exactly the same as in the rules disposed of above, the order given in the first set of rules, shall cover these rules as well.

Both sets of rules are made absolute. We make no order as to costs.

Sarjoo Prosad, C.J.

I agree.