Judgment:
Jas Raj Chopra, J.
1. In this writ petition the petitioner has alleged that she is a displaced bus operator as her non-temporary stage carriage permit bearing No. CHR/21/4 in respect of her bus No. RJR. 2814 of 1963 model was plying on Taranagar-Sardarshahar route duly renewed and valid upto 18-8-1977 was cancelled on 1-11-1976 on account of the implementation of the approved scheme. A displaced operator is entitled to cash compensation under Section 68G(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) or he can be granted a permit for an alternate route in lieu of the said cash compensation. The petitioner did not prefer cash compensation and moved the R.T.A. that she may be rehabilitated on an alternate route as a displaced bus-operator. The R.T.A. accepted the alternate route offered by her which was from Bhadra to Nuwa via Mahalon-ka-bas (Doonglana-Raslana) etc. Initially the route suggested was to pass through Doongrana because that place was covered by the notified scheme, therefore, the route was diverted to Mahalon-ka-bas (Doongrana) and the petitioner was granted along with one Bhagchand temporary stage carriage permits to ply these buses on the newly carved out route. The R.T.A. in its resolution dated 20-7-1977 approved this route as a 'C' class route with a length of 38 kms and decided its scope to consist of three buses and two return trips. According to the petifioner Mahalon-ka-bas and Dungrana are two different villages with a distance of 2 kms existing in between. The State Government has also issued order to rehabilitate the displaced operators of the nationalised scheme. Ordinarily the Government order provides for the rehabilitation of the displaced operators on 'A' class routes and that principles should be applied to B and C class routes also. The R.T.A. Bikaner invited applications for the grant of three permits on the Bhadra Nuwa route. Nine persons have applied for grant of permit on this route including the petitioner. According to the petitioner she described the specified route correctly in her application whereas the persons who have been granted permits, i.e. non-petitioners No. 4 Mangiram and No. 5 Jagdish Chandra Yadav have described the route as passsing through Doongrana which was actually earlier rejected by the R.T.A. as it over lapped the nationalised route to the extent of 13 kms whereas the petitioner's application for grant of permit was rejected along with Bhagchand. In the meeting of the R.T.A. dated 13-4-1978 the petitioner pointed out to the R.T.A. her comparative merits for grant of the permit but they were all overlooked and three permits were granted to one Khanu khan who is alleged to be the driver of the husband of the petitioner and non-petitioner No. 4 and 5, i.e. Mangiram Yadav and Jagdish Chandra Yadav. In granting these permits the petitioner has submitted that the R.T.A. did not take into consideration the fact that she is a displaced operator. She had one ready spare bus with her bearing No. RJI 3135 of 1971 and she had experience to ply her bus on this route in pursuance of a temporary permit granted to her. The petitioner objected the grant of permit to Khanukhan because he possessed no experience of the bus transport business and grant of permit to non-petitioners No. 4 and 3 was opposed on account of the fact that they have failed to describe the route correctly and their contention of higher model buses with them was not genuine but it was a dishonest assertion. According to her Mangiram was not a resident of the route but is resident of Haryana. The R.T.A only considered the criteria of possession of higher model vehicles and gave no reason for the refusal of the permits to the petitioner. Thus according to her this is a non-speaking order. It was also contended that the ready bus which is offered for grant of permit by Mangiram was not at all in existence This was dismandled before 10 years and was sold to the 'kabadis' and only its permit was used by its owner for earning money. She, therefore, filed appeal before the S.T.A.T. but that appeal has also been rejected on 22-3-1979. According to her both the Authorities have over looked the provisions of Section 48(1) and Section 68(FF) of the Act. They have also failed to make assessment of of the comparative merits of the parties in grant of permit. The fact which has to be taken into consideration for grent of permit as per Clauses (a) to (f) of Section 44(1) of the Act were also overlooked. According to the petitioner Mangiram got the permit in his favour by practising misrepresentation and fraud on the R.T.A.
2. On behalf of the non-petitioners no formal reply has been filed but Sri B.L. Maheshwari who represents non-petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 Shri Bharat Vyas who represents non-petitioner No. 3 and Shri Rajendra Vyas who represents non-petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 have submitted their detailed arguments in reply to the arguments made by Shri J.G. Chhangani learned Counsel for the petitioner. It may be mentioned here that non-petitioner No. 3 Shri Khanukhan has expired. No relief has been sought against him by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and therefore, he has prayed that his name may be deleted from the array of non-petitioners. In this respect an application was filed by Shri Chhangani, learned Counsel for the petitioner on 12-8-1986. In view of this application the name of Khanukhan non-petitioner No. 3 is deleted from the array of non-petitioners.
3. Mr. Chhangani did not seriously challenge the grant of permit to Shri Jagdish Chandra Yadav who had a higher model of the vehicle ready with him and who belongs to an area which falls on the route but he has strongly challenged the grant of permit to Mangiram who according to him belongs to Haryana and he had no ready vehicle with him when he filed the application.
4. Mr. Chhangani submitted that the order of the RTA marked Ann. P.8 is a non-speaking order and unless a speaking order giving valid reasons for the rejection the application is passed, according to him that order is nonest. In this respect he placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Sardar Kulwant Singh v. AASTA Rajasthan 1956 RLW, 395 wherein it was held that the order of the Tribunal like the Regional Transport Authority, which exercises judicial functions, should ex-facie show reasons in a succinct form for making that order, and so also the order of the Appellate Authority when it proceeds to set aside the order of the lower Tribunal. It is not sufficient to write down only stock-phrases, as for example 'it would not be in the public interest to grant permits on this route' or that 'there is enough force in what has been stated on behalf of the appellant'. What their Lordships wanted to convey by that judgment was that the order of the RTA should be intelligible and should give reasons for the acceptance of certain applications and if other applications cannot be accepted then its reasons should be either expressly stated or should be implicit in the order that has been passed. By Ann. P/8 the RTA has held that on this route there is a scope of three buses with two return trips. There are nine applications. It has not accepted the applications of applicants Nos. 3, 6 and 9 because they have no ready vehicles with them. It has granted permit to applicants Nos. 8, 7 and 4. Applicant No. 8, i.e. Ramesh Chand is a resident of a village falling on the route and as a 160 wheelbase vehicle of 1970 is available with him which is suitable for a 'C class route and, therefore, he was granted the permit. It has granted permit to applicant No. 7 Mangiram because firstly he is an ex-service man and he has a licence for driving a heavy vehicle and thirdly he was in possession of a vehicle of 1966 model. Shri Khanukhan was granted permit because he had a ready bus with him of 1964 model and secondly that he was a driver. It was argued before the RTA that he has recently purchased the vehicle from the husband of the petitioner Shantidevi. He is actually his driver and, therefore, it is a 'benami' transaction but that objection was over-ruled and the permit was granted. However, the petitioner only had 1963 model vehicle with her and, therefore, she was not preferred to the three persons mentioned above. The applications of the other persons were rejected because they had a lower model vehicle with them or they were lacking in comparative merit so sar as the three successful applicants were concerned. Although they possessed vehicles of requisite model but as the scope was only three, these three persons were preferred to the rest of the six and, therefore, the applications of the rest of the six were rejected for want of future scope.
5. Mr. Chhangani has submitted that the petitioners should have been preferred to all these three persons because she has been a displaced operator and she had the experience of the transport business and she has already her bus on the basis of a temporary permit granted to her on the route. So far as the contention of Mr. Chhangani that his client is a displaced transport operator, suffice it to say that the learned member of the STAT has observed that she has already been granted a permit on account of her being a displaced operator. That order of the RTA Bikaner is dated 20-7-1977 has been marked Ann P/12. Thus this fact that she is a displaced operator of Taranagar-Sardar Shahar route does not survive. When she has been granted a permit on 20-7-77 as a displaced operator she could not have claimed a permit on that basis. Actually this was the fraud which she has perpetuated with the RTA and, therefore, the RTA has rightly rejected her application. In this respect I place reliance on the two decisions of this Court cited by Shri Chhangani. They are Satya Narain v. State 1980 WLN 571 and Bhag Chand v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Anr. 1976 WLN (UC) 71. In both these decisions it has been held that if the applicant misrepresents the fact for obtaining a permit, then such a permit should be refused. In Satya Narayan's case actually Satya Narain claimed that he is a displaced operator but that fact was found to be wrong and so Hon'ble G.M. Lodha, J. held that this ground alone was sufficient to reject his application. When Smt. Shantidevi has been granted a permit on 20-7-1977 then she did not remain a displaced operator and she should not have made an application for Bhadra Nuwa route, claiming herself to be a displaced transport operator.
6. Mr. Chhangani next submitted that both these applicants, i.e. Jagdish Chand and Mangiram have filed their applications for the old route which was rejected by the RTA, i.e. they filed an application mentioning the route which pass through Dungrana. The learned Member of the STAT has observed that actually the RTA itself has notified the application describing the route as passing through Dungrana and not mentioning therein that the route will pass through Mahlon-ka-bas (Dungrana). The petitioner has filed the copy of her application in which she has stated that she is a displaced operator of Taranagar-Sardarshar route. In that application in the heading, the present route has been described as Bhadra Nuwa via Raslana Anupura Ghev whereas in the body of the application in para 4 the route has been described as Bhadra Nuwa via Dungrana and Raslana. It is, therefore, wrong in its part to say that she has described the route correctly in her application whereas the others have described it as Bhadra Nuwa route passing via Dungrana. She herself has described the route Bhadra-Nuwa via , Dungrana and not via Mahalon-ka-bas (Dungrana) and, therefore, it does not lie in her mouth to say that in her application she has described the route correctly whereas others have described it wrongly. The learned Member of the STAT without going through the contents of the application Ann. P 3 has observed that Shantidevi has described the route correctly because she was operating on the route whereas the correct position is that she too has described the route Badra-Nuwa passing through Dungrana, and not passing through Mahlon-ka-bas (Dungrana). It will not be out of place to mention here that the learned Member of the STAT has observed that Mahlon-ka-bas is only a part of village Dungrana and not a separate village. However, it is not a part of my critical secrutiny whether Mahlon-ka-bas is a separate village or not because the RTA has treated it as a separate village for carving out the new route. Thus this argument of Mr. Chhangani that the applications of Jagdish Chand and Mangiram should have been rejected because they have described the route incorrectly cannot be availed by him because he also sails in the same boat. It is quite true that in granting permit certain criterion should be adhered to which are described in Section 47. One of the main criterion in grant of such permits which is of paramount importance is the interest of the travelling public and the interest of the travelling public can be best served by putting on the route a higher model vehicle. The bus which was possessed by the petitioner was of 963 model which became out of date in the year 1979 All the three permits granted by the RTA were of higher models than 1963. Lot of criticism has been levelled regarding the grant of permit to Shri Mangiram. Proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 47 of the Act provides that an application for stage carriage permit who has a valid licence for transport vehicles shall as far as may be preferred from individual owners. It is an undisputed fact that Mangiram possesses a licence for driving heavy vehicles whereas the petitioner has no such licence and, therefore if the RTA has preferred Mangiram to the petitioner, he has only complied with the requirements of Section 47 and has committed no illegality. I have already held that it was wrong on her part to claim that she is a displaced operator because one permit has been granted to her on that account vide the decision of the RTA marked Ann. P. 12 which was much earlier to the present decision and, therefore, when she has come forward for the grant of permit by misrepresenting the facts, it was all the more proper for the RTA to have rejected her application, which was filed on 1-11-77, i.e. more than 3 months after 20-7-77. The learned Member of the STAT has also taken note of this fact but he has not said it in so many words that the application of the petitioner to grant her permit alleging herself to be a displaced operator was a clear cut misrepresentation and fraud. However, I have already held that it was clearcut misrepresention of facts and it was only a fraudulent attempt on her part to obtain the permit by mis-stating the facts regarding her being a displaced operator. It may be worthwhile to mention here that a displaced operator is entitled to be preferred on 'A' class route. Had it been the intention of the Government that such displaced operators should be preferred on B and C class routes also, then it could very well have made such a provision in the notification issued by it where by it has ordered that in grant of permit on A Class routes displaced operators should be preferred. The result is that after the grant of permit to the petitioner by the decision of the RTA on 20-7-1977 she did not remain a displaced operator and so her assertion that she should have been granted a permit on Bhadra-Nuwa route being a displaced operator is a misrepresentation and mis-statement of fact and thirdly even if she has been a displaced operator she could not claim any preference on a B or C class route. The learned Member of the STAT has observed that permits are to be granted keeping in view the interest of the general public and if such an interest can be better served by playing higher model vehicles on the route, then it has to be given more importance than the other consideration. In this case also the RTA has preferred to grant permits to the owners of the higher model vehicles. This is a finding of fact. It has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Abdul Rehman v. STA Tribunal 1978 SC 949 that interest of the travelling public is the dominant consideration in grant of permits and no order in exercise of powers under Article 226 or Article 136 of the Constitution will ordinarily be passed if the public is likely to suffer. In this respect of Their Lordships observed that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution should be reluctant to interfere with or disturb the decision of specially constituted authorities or tribunals under the Act specially when the legislature has entrusted the task of granting or renewing the stage carriage permits to the aforesaid authorities or tribunals which are expected to be fully conversant with the procedure and practice and the relevant matters which should engage their attention under the provisions contained ia the Act. In dealing with applications for writs of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution the High Court does not exercise the jurisdiction of an Appellate Court and the findings or conclusions on questions of fact could hardly be re-examined or disturbed by it under Article 226 of the Constitution unless the well recognised tests in that behalf were satisfied. Here also the learned Member of the STAT has dealt with all aspects of the case and came to the conclusion that simply because the petitioner has been plying her bus on this newly carved out route which might have been caryed out on her persuation and it does not mean that that should be the sole consideration for grant of permit on the route. The paramount consideration is the interest of travelling public and that can be best served by providing higher model vehicles on the route. Moreover, the person whose permit has been attacked very strongly is holder of a driving licence and according to the proviso of Section 47(1), he is entitled to be preferred to an ordinary bus owner. Looking to these facts and circumstances I feel that the learned Member of the STAT was right in upholding the decision of the RTA.
7. One more point which has been very strongly contended by Mr. Chhingani relates to the fact that when Shri Mangiram applied for the permit over bus No. RJM 612, it was of 1966 model. Mr. Chhangani has submitted that that bus was actually dismantled before ten years and was sold to the 'kabadis' and when the permit was applied it was not in existence. This contention of Mr. Chhangani has been controverted by the learned Member of the S.T.A.T. and it has been observed that the D.T.O. Jaisalmer had issued a letter dated 11-5-1978 wherein it has been mentioned that this vehicle was plying upto 30-6-1976 and tax of this vehicle was due from 1-4-1976. If the vehicle was plying upto 1976, then it is futile as also incorrect to say that it was dismantled and sold to the 'kabadi' 10 years ago when the vehicle RJM 613 itself is of 1966 model, How could it believed that it was dismantled only one year after its manufacture, whereas the vehicle of the petitioner was 1963 model and still it was road worthy. Moreover this is a finding of fact by a competent out and this Court in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot interfere with this finding of fact arrived at by a competent authority which is based on sound reason. The learned member of the S.T.A.T. has further observed that although this bus was offered but this bus could not be mentioned in the permit because a dispute arose about the tax liability and, therefore, higher model vehicle was offered by Shri Mangiram and that request was accepted by the R.T.A. and higher model vehicle was put on the road. Thus it is not a case of misrepresentation or fraud as alleged by Mr. Chhangani and therefore, these two authorities. i.e. Satyanarayan and Bhag Chand's case cited above do not apply to the application made by Shri Mangiram. It has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Veerappa v. Raman and Raman Ltd : [1952]1SCR583 that the issue of a permit for a bus which falls within the definition of a 'stage carriage' is not dependent on ownership of the vehicle. All that is required for obtaining a permit is possession of the bus. It has not been proved by the petitioner that before the competent authority i.e. Member, STAT that Mangiram did not possess this bus when he applied for grant of this non-temporary permit, The learned Member has observed that the bus was very much in existence but the sale could not be finalised because of the tax liability. If the vehicle on which the permit is sought on the basis of possession is not purchased by a party for any good reason, then according to Rule 86 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, the owner can request the RTA to grant him permission to substitute that vehicle for entering its description marked in the permit and the registering authority and the RTA has power to grant such permission and in this case too such a permission was granted and the higher model vehicle was allowed to be plied on the route after recovering compounding fees from the operator, i.e. Shri Mangiram.
8. Mr. Chhangani submitted that the applicant himself has offered this vehicle for grant of permit and so he cannot be allowed to back out of this representation on any ground. In this respect he placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Jairam Das v. RTA Jodhpur RLW 1957, 101. It was a case where a particular higher model vehicle was offered for grant of permit and later that model of vehicle could not be put on the route by the permit holder and so the court held that when the permit holder has offered a vehicle of a particular model suo motu he cannot be allowed to back out of it. In this case Mangiram initially offered a vehicle of 1964 model but ultimately he put on the road a vehicle of 1967 model and so the facts of Jairam's case are totally different from the facts of the present case.
9. It was also submitted that the scope of this rule has now been increased and so the petitioner can be granted a permit on the route and she is ready to put a higher model vehicle on the route. This submission cannot be accepted as per the decisions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in R.O. Naidu v. Addl. STAT Madras AIR 1969 SC, 1136 and in Abdul Mateen v. Ram Kailash AIR 1963 SC 64. No other point survives for my consideration.
10. In the result this writ petition has no force and it is here by dismissed.