Naib Transport Private Ltd. vs J.N. Talukdar

Mitter, J.—This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari calling upon the Respondents to send up the records of proceedings relating to orders for taking over bus route No. 12C in Calcutta in implementation of the scheme, dated August 17, 1957 and September 26, 1957, made by the Directorate of Transportation, Respondent No. 2 heerin. The applicants are four persons owing several motor buses which have been plying on route No. 12C which stretches from Howrah station to Barisha. The Respondents are (1) the Director General of Transportation, Government of West Bengal, (2) the Directorate of Transportation of the State Government, (3) Shri R. Gupta, Transport Commissioner, Government of West Bengal, (4) Shri R. Bose, Director of Operation and Transportation, Government of West Bengal, (5) the Regional Transport Authority, Calcutta Region and (6) the State of West Bengal.

The Petitioners hold licenses for the running of their buses on the abovenientioned route which were valid until March 31, 1960. Until the year 1954 they were plying their vehicles on route, No. 33 running from Paikpara to Chetla. The Petitioners plead that sometime in 1954 an agreement was entered into between them and the Respondent No. 1 whereby buses owned by the State of West Bengal were withdrawn from route No. 12C and the Petitioners who were plying their buses on route No. 33 agreed to run the same on rouie No. 12C. According to the Petitioners this arrangement has been in forte ever since. Towards the end of September 1956 the Respondent No. 2 as the State Transport Undertaking in West Bengal prepared a scheme for the purpose-of taking over certain bus routes in Calcutta for the exclusive operation thereof by the said Respondent. This scheme was first published in the "Calcutta Gazette" on August 22, 1957. A copy of the scheme annexed to the petition shows that as the Director of Transportation, Government of West Bengal, was of opinion that for the purpose of providing efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road transport services it was necessary in the public interest that passenger transport services in the Calcutta area in the routes specified in column three of the schedule to the scheme should be run and operated by the said Directorate to the complete exclusion of other persons the Director had prepared a scheme which was being published for the information of persons likely to be affected thereby. Anybody affected by the scheme was invited to file objection thereto before the Government of West Bengal in the Home (Transport) Department within thirty days from the date of its publication. The schedule in the third column gives the routes which were to be covered by the scheme, namely, 10A, 11, 3, 3A, 3B, 13, 36, 36A, 12, 12A, 12B, 12C, 38 and 30. The scheme was prepared u/s 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act and the objections were called for u/s 68D of the Act. The Petitioners preferred their objections to the scheme through the Bengal Tiljala Bua Association on September 12, 1957. They were informed through the said association by an Assistant Secretary to the State Government that their objections would be considered u/s 68(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act by Shri R. Gupta, Transport Commissioner, West Bengal, and ex-officio Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Home Department, on September 25, 1957 and any one desiring to be heard in the matter might appear in person or through an authorized representative before the said. Authority. A notification issued by the State Government and published in the "Calcutta Gazette" on September 26, 1957 shows that the Government after considering objections filed u/s 68D(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act was pleased to approve the scheme as set out in the schedule to the notification. The schedule is the same as that given at the foot of the notification, dated August 17, 1957. The result was that the scheme as framed was accepted without any modification by the State Government.

There is no dispute that in implementation of the said scheme the Respondent No. (2) has already taken over bus routes Nos. 10, 10A, 11, 3, 13, 36, 36A and 38 on diverse dates between October 1, 1957 and September 15. 1959. bk-iue of the routes including 120 are still in the hands of private bus owners.

Between February 17, 1960 and February 20, 1960 the Respondent No. (4) informed the Chairman, Regional Transport Authority, Respondent No. (5) herein, that the Directorate of Transportation would take over route No. 12C and operate State-owned buses on that route with effect from April 1, 1960 and accusingly there should be no renewal of permits for buses plying on that route beyond March 31, I960. This was in furtherance of the scheme published in the "Calcutta Gazette" on September 26, 1957 and u/s 68F(2) of Clause (i) of Clause (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Copies of this letter were sent to various bus owners who had already applied for renewal of stage carriage permits under the Motor Vehicles Act for a period commencing on April 1, 1960. The Petitioners requested the Respondents (1), (2), (3) and (6) by letter, dated March 11, 1960, and the Respondent Nos. (4) and (5) by letter dated March 16, 1960, to reconsider the decision and meet out justice to them but to no effect.

This petition was presented on March 18, 1960 when a Rule was issued calling upon the Respondents to show cause why writs mentioned in the prayers of the petition should not be issued to quash the orders and proceedings complained of.

The attack of the Petitioners is directed first to the scheme in that the Respondent No. (3) was not a person competent to hear objection to it u/s 68D of the Act and secondly that he was not properly authorized by the State Government in this behalf. The next ground of attack is that the Respondent No. (2) has no power to implement the scheme, even if it be held to be good, in installments and that the scheme must be mack- effective as a whole as from an appointed date. The last giotmd of objection urged by the Petitioners is that the State Transport Undertaking has no valid permit to run buses on route No. 12C inasmuch as it never applied for a permit six weeks before April 1, 1960.

The only affidavit in opposition affirmed herein is by the Respondent No. (4). The deponent states that (a) the State ''Transport Undertaking decided sometime in the year 19o4 to run only Stale-owned buses in route No. 33 from April 1, 1954, (b) 23 buses belonging to various persons including the Petitioners where plying on that route, (c) some of the said bus owners applied to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of an appropriate writ quashing the order of the Government of West Bengal to take over the said route, (d) the application was dismissed and the rule discharged, (e) thereafter the owners of the buses plying in route No. 33 approached the Government of West Bengal for sympathetic consideration of their position and the difficulties they would be put to if their buses were not allowed to ply, (f) in response to this appeal the Government of West Bengal as a matter of grace decided to withdraw State-owned buses from route No. 12C to enable persons plying their buses on route No. to run the same on the route from howrah to Barisha (12C) and (g) 22 permits were accordingly issued to such bus owners and it was distinctly understood that this concession granted to them might he discontinued at any time. It is therefore claimed that the Petitioners have no cause for complaint if the concession made in 1954 is now withdrawn.

Will regard to the objection 1o the scheme raised by the Petitioners. the. deponent denies that Respondent No. (3) had no power or authority to hear the objection u/s 68D(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and states that the said Respondent "was the Transport Commissioner, West Bengal, and ex-officio Secretary to the Government of West Bengal in its Home Department and as such lie was competent to hear the objection on behalf of the State of West Bengal. The Respondent No. (3) was not working under the Respondent No. 1.". It is further denied that Respondent No. (3) was an officer of the Directorate of Transportation or that he had any connection whatsoever with the said Directorate. The duties of the Respondent No. 3 are enumerated in para. 11 of the affidavit in opposition and it is claimed that the same have no connection with those of the Respondent No. (1).

The deponent further states that the State Government has at present a sufficient number of buses fit for being run on different bus routes in Calcutta. It is claimed that the State Government has obtained a license to import more than 100 chassis from overseas for having bus bodies built in its well-equipped workshop which is also sufficient for keeping and maintaining the buses in proper working order. The deponent goes on to say that the State Government was in a position to take over all the bus routes in Calcutta immediately after the framing of the scheme in 1957 but in order to avoid hardships which its implementation would have entailed on the owners of private buses the scheme is being given effect to in stages so that the Petitioners and others may rehabilitate themselves in other parts of the State.

With regard to the third point the deponent pleads that the State Transport Directorate has a permit for running 700 buses in Calcutta. The date of the issue of permit is not mentioned in the affidavit nor is any copy of the permit annexed to it. It is stated that the Regional Transport Authority was directed not to sanction permits for use in route No. 12C because the State Government wanted to run its own buses on that route as from April 1, 1960.

Lastly, it is claimed that there lias been no discrimination in the matter of taking over the different bus routes alleged in the petition but inasmuch as a number of owners of buses plying on routes which the Government had not yet taken over proposed to Government to allow them time for making arrangements for running their buses elsewhere. Government agreed to give them some time nevertheless however to take over all the other routes by the end of the year.

In the affidavit in reply affirmed by Sarat Kumar Chatterjee it is stated that there never was any agreement in April 1954 between the Government and the owners of buses plying on route No. 33 as mentioned in the affidavit in opposition but an arrangement was arrived at between April 3, 1954 and April 5, 1954 whereby the Petitioners and others plying their buses on route No. 33 were given permission to run the same on route 12C instead and in view of this the hearing of the Rule was not pressed but the same was allowed to be discharged. A copy of a letter, dated April 3, 1954 from the Secretary of the Bengal Tiljala Bus Association to the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, and the reply thereto, dated April 5, 1954, are annexed to the affidavit in reply. The first letter shows that a proposal had been made on behalf of the State Transport Undertaking that owners of buses plying on route No. 33 should accept route No. 12C instead. The reply of April 5, 1954 shows that R.T.A. had approved of the proposal and that the owners of private buses were to be able to run the same on route No. 12C from that date. The deponent maintaiiis that the Respondent No. (3), as Transport Commissioner, was an officer subordinate to the Respondent No. (1) who was Secretary of Home (Transport) Department, Government of West Bengal. In this connection reference is made to a printed copy of a report of the Eoad Transport Re-organisation Committee of the Ministry of Transport and Communication, Government of India, published in March 1959.

The relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act for the purpose of this application are as follows: Chapter IV of the Act containing Sections 42 to 68 deals with the control of Transport vehicles. u/s 42 "No owner of a transport vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle in any public place, save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or counter-signed by a Regional or State Transport Authority or the Commission authorizing the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used." The- transport authorities are enunieiated in Section 44 of the Act. u/s 45 every application for a permit shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to use the vehicle. u/s 46 an application for a permit in respect of a service of stage carriages must contain the particulars therein specified including the route of routes or the area or areas to which the application relates, the number of vehicles it is proposed to operate in relation to each route or area and the type and seating capacity of such vehicle. u/s 58 a stage carriage permit other than a temporary permit shall be effective without renewal for a period, not less than three years and not more than five years, as may be specified. Section 57 lays down the procedure for applying for the granting of permits. u/s 62 the Regional Transport Authority may without following the procedure laid down in Section 57, grant permits to be effective for a limited period not exceeding four months.

Chapter IVA containing Sections 68A to 68 1 was introduced in the Act making special provisions relating to State Transport Undertakings. u/s 68B this Chapter overrides Chapter IV. Sections 68C, D, E and F are set out in extensor below.

Section 68C: Preparation and publication of scheme of road transport service of a State Transport Undertaking.-Where any State Transport Undertaking is of opinion that for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road transport service, it is necessary in the public interest that road transport services in general or any particular class of such service in relation to any area or route or portion thereof should be run and operated by the State Transport Undertaking, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of other persons or otherwise, the State Transport Undertaking may prepare a scheme giving particulars of the nature of the services proposed to be rendered, the area or route proposed to be covered and such other particulars respecting thereto as may be prescribed and shall cause every such scheme to be published in the Official Gazette and also in such other manner as the State Government may direct.

Section 68D: Objection to the scheme.-(1) Any person affected by the scheme published u/s 68C may, within thirty days from the date of the publication of the scheme in the Official Gazette, file objection thereto before the State Government.

(2) The State Government may after considering the objections and after giving an opportunity to the objector or his representatives and the representatives of the State Transport Undertaking to be heard in the matter, if they so desire, approve or modify the scheme.

(3) The scheme as approved or modified under Sub-section (2) shall then be published in the Official Gazette by the State Government and the same shall thereupon become final and shall be called the approved scheme and the area or route to which it relates shall be called the notified area or notified route:

Provided that no such scheme which relates to any interstate route shall be deemed to be an approved scheme unless it has been published in the Official Gazette with the previous approval of the Central Government.

Section 68E: Cancellation or modification of scheme.- Any scheme published under Sub-section (3) of Section 68D may at any time be cancelled or modified by the State Transport Undertaking and the procedure laid down in Section 68C and Section 68D shall, so far as it can be made applicable, be followed in every case where; the scheme is proposed to be modified as if the modification proposed were a separate scheme.

Section 68F: Issue of permit to State Transport Undertakings.-(1) "Where, in pursuance of an approved scheme any State Transport Undertaking applies in the manner specified in Chapter IV" for a stage carriage permit in respect of a notified area or notified route, the Regional Transport Authority shall issue such permit to the State Transport Undertaking, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Chapter IV.

(2) For the purpose of giving effect to the approved scheme in respect of a notified area or notified route, the Regional Transport Authority may, by order,-

(a) refuse'' to entertain any application for the renewal of any other perm 11 ;

(b) cancel any existing permit;

(c) modify the terms of any existing permit so as To-

(i) render the permit ineffective beyond a specified date;

(ii) reduce the number of vehicles authorised to be used under the permit;

(iii) curtail the area or route covered by the permit in so far as such permit relates to the notified area or notified route.

(3) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that no appeal shall lie against any action taken, or order passed, by the Regional Transport Authority under Sub-section (i) of Sub-section (2).

As already mentioned the affidavit in opposition does not disclose the written authority issued by the State Government, enabling the Respondent No. (3) to hear objections to the scheme u/s 68D of the Act but at the hearing of the application a file was produced before me from the Home (Transport) Department including a memorandum claimed to be the order of appointment of the Respondent No. 3 as the authority to deal with objections to the scheme u/s 68D(2) of the Act. It reads:

Home Transport Department

File T3M/107/57

Part II Order and Writs.

The Governor is pleased hereby to appoint Shri R. Gupta. Transport Commissioner, West Bengal, an ex-officio Secretary to the Government of West Bengal, Home Department, to dispose of an application filed under Sub-section (2) of Section 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

By order of the Governor,

(Signature)

Secretary to the Govt. of W.B.

There is no signature of anybody under the words "by order of the Governor" but the initials of somebody appear in the margin which were said to be that of the Respondent No. (1). Further a portion of the writing in ink in the body of the order has been pencilled through and evidently meant to be replaced by the words in the margin. The words pencilled through are "dispose of an application filed" and the words in replacement thereof in the margin, also in pencil read "deal with the objection filed." Speaking for myself I have great difficulty in appreciating that such a document can be the repository of an order of the Governor. I had taken the same to be only a draft but I was informed that this was the final order. To say the least, this seems to be a very slipshod way of doing things and people can reasonably expect something better in secretariat files. Rules, under Article 166(2) of the Constitution made by the Governor were shown to me and according to these all orders or instruments made or executed by or on behalf of the Government of West Bengal shall be expressed to be made or executed by or by order of the Governor of West Bengal and except in cases where an officer has been specially empowered to sign an order or instrument of the Government of West Bengal, every such order or instrument shall be signed by either a Secretary, a Joint Secretary, etc., to the Government of West Bengal and such signature shall be deemed to be the proper authentication of such order or instrument. It is not disputed that Respondent No. (1) is the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal in the Home Department and if the document referred to above be an order signed by him the authority of Respondent No. (3) cannot be questioned. But even so it must be held that the Respondent No. (3) should not have heard the objections to the scheme. Mr. Meyer, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, referred me to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gullapalli Nageswara Rao and Others Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Another, . One of the points canvassed against the scheme there was that it was the Secretary to the Government, Home Department, in-charge of Transport who had heard the representations made by the objectors and being in charge of the Transport Department he was a judge in his own cause. It was there contended on behalf of the Government that in following the procedure prescribed u/s 68D of the Act, the Governor was discharging only an administrative and not a judicial function in the matter of approving the scheme. This was not accepted by the Supreme Court and it was observed that "the concept of a quasi-judicial act implies that the act is not wholly judicial; it describes only a duty cast on the executive body or authority to conform to norms of judicial procedure in performing some acts in exercise of its executive power... though the formal orders were made by the Chief Minister, in effect and substance, the enquiry was conducted and personal hearing was given by one of the parties to the dispute itself. It is one of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure that the person or persons who are entrusted with the duty of hearing a case judicially should be those who have no personal bias in the "matter.'''' The Supreme Court quoted from the judgment in Willian Ranger v. Great Eastern Railway Company (1854) 5 H.L.C. 72, Rex v. Svssex Justices (1921) 1 K.B. 256 and Rex v. Essex Justices (1927) 2 K.B. 475, and said that "the aforesaid decisions accept the fundamental principle of natural justice that in the case of quasi-judicial proceedings, the authority empowered to decide the dispute between opposing parties must be one without bias towards one side or other in the dispute. It is also a matter of fundamental importance that a person interested in one party or the other should not, oven formally, take part in the proceedings though in fact he does not influence the mind of the person, who finally decides the case." Mr. Meyer argued that it was not necessary for his client to establish affirmatively that the Respondent No. (3) had displayed any bias and that it was enough if it could be shown that there was a strong probability of bias from the circumstances of the case. He relied on the report of the Road Transport Re-Organisation Committee published by the Government of India in March 1959 at p. 139 of which particulars with regard to West Bengal are given. Column 2 of it reads: "Transport is a branch of the Home Department and the Chief Minister holds the portfolio in addition to others. There is also a Deputy Minister. Officers-(i) Secretary, Home (Transport) Department, (2) Transport Commissioner and (3) Assistant Secretary and Assistant Transport Commissioner." The Constitution of the State Transport Authority is given in column 3 reading: "the Transport Commissioner is the Chairman with four other official members including a railway representative and four non-official members. * * * The Transport Commissioner is the head of the Department who is also the Chief Electoral Officer, ex-officio Secretary Home (Constitution and Elections) Department and also Secretary, Home (Police) Department. The Director General of Transportations is the head of the nationalised transport services wdio is also Secretary, Home (Transport) Department". Mr. Banerjee. Counsel, for the Respondents referred to the West Bengal Civil List corrected up to May 1, 1957. Part II of this shows that the substantive appointment of Respondent No. (1) was that of a Commissioner of a Division but that he was officiating as Director General of Transportation and was ex-officio Secretary, Home (Transport). So far as Respondent No. (3) is concerned the substantive appointment is shown as ''''senior post" in the I.A.S. cadre and he was acting as Transport Commissioner and ex-officio Secretary, Home Department. Mr. Banerjee argued that both these persons were Secretaries in the Home Department, the Respondent No. (1) being a Secretary in the Transport Branch of the said Department. Page 24 of the book, which was not referred to by Learned Counsel, gives a list of "officers under Home (Transport) Department"''. The list is headed by the Respondent No. (1) and immediately following his name is that of the Respondent No. (3). In my view, it is impossible to come to any conclusion other than that both the Respondent No. (1) and the Respondent No. (3) belong to the same department although their duties may be different and in such a state of affairs a possibility of bias, even if unconscious, cannot be ruled out. On the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Nageswar Rao''s case (supra) it must be held that the hearing of objections to the scheme framed by one officer by another of the same department violates a principle of natural justice, with the necessary result that the scheme so far as it is in an executory stage must be held to be bad.

The second point of Mr. Meyer also seems to be one of substance and he has the authority of another judgment of the Supreme Court in his armory. In Shrinivasa Reddy and Others Vs. State of Mysore and Others, , the Supreme Court by a majority of four to one construed Section 68C of the Act to the effect that "when the Undertaking (State Transport Undertaking) decides to frame a scheme it must take into account its resources in men, material and money and frame a scheme only to the extent to which it can carry it out in full. For example, it it can carry out the scheme for the whole state at once it may frame a scheme for the whole State. But if it cannot do so, it can frame a scheme for one district. Even if that is not within its resources it can frame a scheme for a part of a district. * * * The scheme to be framed must be such as is capable of being carried out all at once and that is why the Undertaking has been given the power to frame a scheme for an area or route or even a portion thereof. Further after the scheme is framed it is approved and published by the State Government. Thereafter it is the duty of the Undertaking to carry out the scheme and in pursuance of that it applies for permits u/s 68F(1). If the Undertaking at that stage has the power to carry it out piece-meal, it would be possible for it to abuse the power of implementation and to discriminate against some operators and in favor of others included in the scheme and also to break up the integrity of the scheme and in a sense modify it against the terms of Section 68E." It is just and proper that I should point out that before dealing with this aspect of the case the Supreme Court has observed that in view of its decision on another point it was not necessary to decide the objection as to the scheme being carried out piece-meal but Section 68E of the Act did come up for consideration and the learned Judges of the Supreme Court by a majority were pleased to construe it as above. It is therefore no answer to the objection framed by the Petitioners to say that the State Government could have taken oxer all the routes in Calcutta upon framing the scheme but did not do so only in the interest of owners of private buses as suggested in the affidavit in opposition. The State Government must no doubt be alive to these interests but unless the Act gives the State Government a right to implement the scheme in stages it cannot do so. Moreover the affidavit in opposition quite clearly show-that there has been some discrimination in the matter of taking up the different routes which are still in private hands. The State Government cannot he allowed to pick and choose among the different routes allowing some of the private bus owners to ply their buses on certain routes while depriving others on route-No. 12C of the same facility. It would not be out of place to mention that the welfare of the unfortunate people who have to travel by buses in Calcutta ought not to be ignored. It is a well-known fact that on most of the routes the buses are dangerously overcrowded from early morning till late in the evening. No question of comfort or convenience can possibly be in the mind of anybody who has to travel by buses. One travels because on,e must. If the State Government has any buses to spare it would do well to increase the strength of the service on most of the routes. I find it difficult to believe that some buses could not IK-added to each of the routes for convenience of the traveling public-without any dislocation of the traffic.

It was argued on behalf of the Respondents that as route No. 12C may be taken over by the State Transport Undertaking in pursuance of an agreement arrived at in April 1954 it was not necessary for the Undertaking to rely on the scheme. The argument is wholly unconvincing. First, because it is in implementation of the scheme that the Undertaking proposed to take over the said route and not in furtherance of the agreement. Secondly, the Undertaking has not been able to produce any agreement in writing to show that the owners plying their buses on route 12C would have no cause for complaint if at any time the said route was proposed to be nationalized. The copies of two letters which are annexed to the affidavit in reply only go to show that the owners of buses on route No. 33 would be permitted to run them on route No. 12C giving up the old route. There is no suggestion in any of the two letters, nor has the Undertaking been able to produce anything in writing, to show that the permission to run buses on route No. 12C could be withdrawn at any moment. Reliance was placed on several affidavits affirmed by other bus owners (not parties to these proceedings) to the effect that they did not want to be associated with the Petitioners in the present case and that in April 1954 there had been an understanding between the Undertaking and the owners of hues on route Xo. 33 that the latter would not object to route 12C being taken over by the State Transport "if any scheme of nationalisation was adopted by Government as a matter of public policy." I cannot place any reliance on these affidavits because they were not filed in time, nor did the Petitioners have any opportunity of meeting the allegations therein contained and because it is difficult to believe that in April 1954 the undertaking had expressed any clear intention of taking over all the bus routes in Calcutta. There could have been no "scheme of nationalization" envisaged by the Motor Vehicles Act in April 1954 because Chapter IVA of the Act was not on the statute book.

On the last point of objection taken by the Petitioners it was. argued on behalf of the Respondents that it was not necessary for the Undertaking to make an application for a permit six weeks before April 1. 1960 for running buses on route 12C because it had already been granted a permit for running 700 buses in Calcutta region u/s 58A of the Motor Vehicles Act as amended by West Bengal. Legislature. Section 58A was engrafted on the Motor Vehicles Act. 1939, so far as West Bengal v> as concerned by West Bengal Act XIX of 1951 and read as follows:

Grant of a permit to a local authority: Notwithstanding anything herein before contained, the State Government may order direct any Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority to grant a stage carriage permit to the State Government or any local authority specified in the order.

At the hearing of the petition a document said to be a permit was produced before me. It is difficult to hold that this can be the document which was issued on September 11, 1956 a date which appears in one corner of it, because it purports to be signed by the Secretary of the State Transport Authority bearing date March 2, 1960. It shows that the Director of Transportation could use 700 stage carriages (single and double Deckers) in the Calcutta Region. The date of expiry of the license is given as September 11, 1961. Mr. Banerjee did not argue that Section 58A was still in force but proceeded on the basis that it had been repealed impliedly by the introduction of Chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act in the year 1956. But he argued that anything done under the West Bengal Act was not affected by the repeal and the license granted while Section 58A was in force is still good. Mr. Meyer complained (1) that the affidavit in opposition does not show how and when this license was obtained and (2) that there was no suggestion in the affidavit in opposition that the Undertaking was arranging to run buses on route 12C on the strength of a permit granted u/s 58A of the Motor Vehicles Act as amended in 1951. The argument certainly lias considerable force. It is remarkable thai the Undertaking has sought to rely on facts not clearly brought out in the affidavit thus giving no opportunity to the Petitioners to meet the point. Section 68F(1) of the Act shows that the Regional Transport Authority is bound to issue a permit to the State Transport Undertaking when the latter applies in the manner specified in Chapter IV for a stage carriage permit in pursuance of an approved scheme. It is obligatory on the Regional Transport Authority to issue a permit notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Chapter IV. The application however must be made in the manner specified in Chapter IV. Such an application must be made not less than six weeks before the date on which it is desired that the permit shall take effect u/s 57(2) which is contained in Chapter IV of the Act. If the permit issued in 1956 be still in force it may not be necessary for the Undertaking to apply for a permit just now but on the materials disclosed it is not possible to adjudicate upon the validity of the permit which was brought out at the hearing of the application.

The rule must be made absolute and there must be a direction on the Respondents not to give effect to the letters addressed by the Director of Operation to the Regional Transport Authority to refuse to entertain an application from the Petitioners for the renewal of permits in respect of route No. 12C beyond March 31, 1960. This will not however prejudice the Respondents in any way from taking any steps to cure the defects in the scheme framed in 1957 or to frame a new scheme in compliance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. There will be no order as to costs.