Om Prakash vs Regional Transport Authority

B.R. Arora, J.—The petitioner, by this writ petition, has prayed that the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner, may be restrained from considering, granting or issuing any permit on Suratgarh to Chhattargarh existing route via 236 R.D. or its portion thereof.

The petitioner is an existing operator on Suratgarh to Chhattargarh via 236 R.D. existing route in Bikaner Region and is a holder of non-temporary stage carriage permit covered by bus No. RNC 9536. The case of the petitioner is that in view of the provisions of Section 80(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the respondent will grant permit on the existing routes to numberless persons, which will result in uneconomic competition. The other ground, on which the grant of permit has been challenged, is that the route in question over-laps the notified route about 15 kms. in length.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The only contention, raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that portion of this route overlaps the notified route for more than 15 kilometres in length and, therefore, the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority has no jurisdiction to grant any permit. His further contention is that the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner, even lacks the jurisdiction to entertain, consider and grant any permit on this route. Mr. R.N. Munshi-learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 Manoj Kumar, to whom, after filing of the writ petition, one non-temporary stage carriage permit on the route in question has been granted, has submitted that the petitioner, who himself is an existing operator and is playing his bus on the said route, cannot challenge the grant of permit to any other person on the ground that the existing route overlaps more than 10 kilometres of the notified route.

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.

The petitioner is holding the non-temporary stage carriage permit on the existing route, granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner, and is an existing operator and his only effort is to stop new operators from coming in the field as the competitors. There is neither any infringement nor is there any denial of legal rights of the petitioner. A healthy competition in the transport will result in providing efficient transport system. An existing operator, who is operating on the same route under a non-temporary stage carriage permit, granted to him by the same Regional Transport Authority, has no locus standi to challenge the grant of permit under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the route in question overlaps the notified route more than 10 kilometres. When the petitioner himself is operating on the existing route and plying his bus, he cannot be allowed to agitate this matter as the petitioner himself is taking benefit of the grant. In this view of the matter, the petitioner has not locus standi under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the grant of permit to other applicants on the existing route.

Consequently, the writ petition, filed by the petitioner, is dismissed with costs.