Pradeep Chaudhary Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/766731
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided OnApr-01-1987
Case NumberD.B. Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 2427 and 2428 of 1986
Judge Kanta Bhatnagar and; Milap Chand Jain, JJ.
Reported in1987(1)WLN716
AppellantPradeep Chaudhary
RespondentState Transport Appellate Tribunal
DispositionPetition allowed
Cases ReferredLal Chand Hargun Dass v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.
Excerpt:
motor vehicles act, 1939 - section 47(3)--grant of non-temporary permit r and g filed applications for 2 existing vacancies--scope increased and fresh applications were invited--held, grant of permits in favour of r and g was not correct and valid.;the applications of ramesh chand samdani and govid ram were filed in pursuance of the invitation of the applications for the then existing scope of 5:5 and when there were only two vacancies, the rta in the circumstances could not have considered the applications for the three vacancies under the increased scope for which fresh applications were invited.;the grant of permits in favour of ramesh chand samdani and govind ram by the tribunal taking into consideration the existing vacancies, not being aware of the situation that applications had been invited for the vacancies created by the increased scope and they had already been published and the applicants were waiting for their applications to be considered on the basis of comparative merit, was not correct and the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.;writ allowed - - 3, 1985 as well as on the date of passing the impugned orders, that is availability of three more vacancies. 16. it is not in dispute that subsequent to the scope being increased on august 28, 1985 applications for three vacancies were invited and those applications as well as the application of the petitioner filed suo moto on august 26, 1985 were published on january 2, 1986. 17. if the application of the petitioner though filed prior to the meeting of the rta, dated december 3, 1985 was there but was not ripe because of its not being published till that date the rta was right in publishing that application on january 2, 1986 along with the applications filed for the grant of permits for the three vacancies created on account of the increase in the scope. annexure p-2 clearly shows that the scope for which the applications were to be considered on december 3, 1985 was 5:5 and there were two vacancies.kanta bhatnagar, j.1. in these two writ petitions petitioner pradeep chaudhary has challenged the legality and correctness of the orders passed by the state transport appellate tribunal rajasthan, jaipur (for short 'the stat 'here in after) dated august 13, 1986, granting one non-temporary stage carriage permit in favour of ramesh chand samdani and the order dated september 4, 1986, granting one non-temporary stage carriage permit in favour of govind ram. as the points involved in the two writ petitions arising out of the aforesaid two orders are exactly the same, we propose to dispose them of by one common order.2. the facts necessary for the disposal of the two petitions are as under: in udaipur region on an old existing route bhilwara-shahpura via sanganer, bada mahuwa, dhikola etc. etc. there was a scope of three stage carriage to perform three return services on the route. under that scope one non-temporary stage temporary carriage permit each in favour of lal chand, gyan chand and sardar gyan singh was granted but sardar gyan singh did not avail the permit. on august 19,1985, the rta granted one non-temporary stage carriage permit in favour of one asha devi. meanwhile the scope had been increased from 3:3 to 5:5 by the rta in exercise of the powers vested under the motor vehicles act (for short 'the act' here in after). as such there were two vacancies of permits on the route under the increased scope.3. ramesh chand samdani applied for the grant of permit over that route by the application dt. june 19, 1985 and govindram by his application dated july 31, 1985. these applications along with some others were published in the rajasthan raj patra dated september 5, 1985.4. under the increased scope the applications of non-petitioners no. 3, along with various other applications came for consideration in the meeting of the rta held on december 3, 1985. by a resolution of that date, the rta granted two non temporary stage carriage permits, one in favour of kamlesh kumar rajendra kumar and the other in favour of sharad chandra gokhroo. the rta by its resolution dated august 28, 1985 had already revised the scope on the route bhilwara to shahpura and fixed it to 8:8. applications were invited for the three vacancies occuring on account of the increase in the scope. various applications applied for the grant of non-temporary stage carriage permit under the increased scope. prior to that on august 26, 1985, petitioner pradeep chaudhary had suo moto applied for the permit on the route. in the meeting of december 3, 1985 only two vacancies were considered, and as stated earlier, the permits were granted in favour of kamlesh kumar rajendra kumar and sharad chandra gokhroo. the applications of non-petitioner ramesh chand samdani and govind ram who were appellants before the stat and got the impugned order passed in their favour, and of certain others were rejected on the ground that there was no vacancy. ramesh chand samdani and govind ram approached in appeal to the stat. the learned member of the stat taking into consideration the scope of 8:8 on the date of the resolution of the rta dated december 3, 1985 allowed the appeals and granted one non-temporary stage carriage permit in favour of each of them. pradeep chaudhary whose application was in existence on december 3, 1985 but had been published subsequently for the increased scope of 8:8 felt aggrieved by the orders of the stat in favour of ramesh chand samdani and govind ram and has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court by filing writ petitions under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india.5. mr. r.r. vyas. learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the applications of ramesh chand samdani and govind ram had been published for the vacancies in the scope of 5:5 but when on december 3, 1985 the two vacancies had been filled up by grant of permits to kamlesh kumar rajendra kumar and sharad chandra gokhroo there remained no vacancy and the applications of non-petitioners ramesh chand samdani and govind ram had been rightly rejected. mr. vyas vehemently stressed that the two non-petitioners i.e. ramesh chand samdani and govind ram had concealed before the stat the fact of inviting of applications by the rta and the applications being published for the three vacancies under the increased scope of 5:5 to 8:8.6. mr. vyas also submitted that one ramesh chand chand mal whose application had been rejected on december 3, 1985 on the ground of non-availability of vacancy had also filed appeal before the stat and has been granted one non stage carriage permit for the third vacancy. that, as such there remains no vacancy now and the petitioner and other applicants whose applications have been published under the increased scope have been deprived of the consideration by the rta.7. mr. r.n. munshi, learned counsel for ramesh chand samdani and mr. b.l. maheshwari learned counsel for govind ram have tried to justify the orders of the stat on the ground that the scope has already been increased prior to the meeting of the rta dated december 3, 1985 and therefore five vacancies were available on that day. that, the stat had rightly taken into consideration the circumstances which existed on dec. 3, 1985 as well as on the date of passing the impugned orders, that is availability of three more vacancies. that, the application of pradeep chaudhary was not ripe for consideration because he had applied on august 26, consideration because he had applied on august 26, 1985 after the publication of the applications to be considered on december 3, 1985 meeting and that too suo moto and therefore, he cannot have any grievance for the grant of non-temporary stage carriage permit to non-petitioners ramesh chand samdani and govind ram by the stat.8. learned counsel for the non-petitioners ramesh samdani and govind ram submitted that the case is fully covered by the decision of the division bench of this court in d.b. civil special appeal no. 27 of 1981 r.s.r.t.c. v. m/s prem chand and ors. decided on january 31, 1986.9. the pertinent question is whether the s.t.a.t. was justified in granting permits to the persons whose applications were rejected on december 3, 1985 on the ground of non-availability of vacancies, despite the scope having been increased from 5:5 to 8:8 on june 28, 1986.10. the learned counsel for the parties have relied on various authorstics throwing light on the point which we would just discuss.11. in the case of r.obliswami naidu v. add/. state transport appellate tribunal, madras and ors. : [1969]3scr730 , it was held as under:in view of sections 47 and 57 before granting a stage carriage permit two independent steps have to be taken. firstly, there should be a determination by the r.t.a. under section 47(3) of the number of stage carriages for which stage carriage permits may be granted in that route. thereafter applications for stage carriage permits in that route should be entertained.12. in that view of the matter it was held that where the rta determines the number of stage carriages required on the route at the time of entertaining applications for stage carriage permits, the procedure is not in accordance with law. the apprehension expressed in case contrary view being taken is that it will throw open the door for manipulations and nepotism and the operator who happens to apply for the route first will be in a commanding position.13. in the case of maharashtra state road transport corporation v. mangrulpir joint motor service co. (p) ltd. and ors. : air1971sc1804 while discussing the power of the rta under section 47 of the motor vehicles act, 1939, it was observed that the rta has power to ask for further information from applicants for stage carriage permit for full consideration of applications in the interest of public and it is also within the competence of the rta to publish the same information in order to enable persons affected to send their representations.14. the important question is whether the act of the, rat to reject the applications on december 3, 1985, despite the scope having been increased from 5:5 to 88 on: august 28, 1985 was improper and whether the suo moto application of the petitioner pradeep chaudhary filed subsequent to the publication of the applications to be considered on december 3, 198 5 and before the increase in the scope on august 28, 1986 could have been published for the increased scope.15. in the case of revanappa sangappa mott v. the regional transport authority, bidar and ors. air 1979 kar 141 the question of suo moto application at the time when there was no scope, came for consideration and the full bench of the court held that if a person makes sue moto an application to the rta for over a new route in respect of which there is no, prior determination under section 47(3) of the act and thereafter the rta makes a determination under section 47(3), it will not be legally impermissible for the rta to consider and decide at its next sitting whether a permit should be granted to that person without inviting applications. according to their lordships, the only limitation on the power of the rta to grant a stage carriage permit under section 48 of the act is that the rta must determine the number of stage carriages for which permits may be granted as required by section 47(3) of the act before it can embark upon the consideration of the merits of the applications and the representations against them.16. it is not in dispute that subsequent to the scope being increased on august 28, 1985 applications for three vacancies were invited and those applications as well as the application of the petitioner filed suo moto on august 26, 1985 were published on january 2, 1986.17. if the application of the petitioner though filed prior to the meeting of the rta, dated december 3, 1985 was there but was not ripe because of its not being published till that date the rta was right in publishing that application on january 2, 1986 along with the applications filed for the grant of permits for the three vacancies created on account of the increase in the scope.18. the question of the procedure for grant of stage carriage permits under section 47 of the act came for consideration before the division bench of this court in the case of hari narain natani v. regional transport authority, jaipur and anr. and it was held that the rta should dispose of all such pending applications as actually become ripe for hearing by the time it decides to convene a meeting for consideration of such applications.19. as observed above, the application of the petitioner was not ripe on december 3, 1985 when the meeting for granting permit was convened. annexure p-2 clearly shows that the scope for which the applications were to be considered on december 3, 1985 was 5:5 and there were two vacancies. even regarding the three vacancies, applications had been invited subsequent to the increase in the scope and they were, as observed above, published on january 2, 1986 and were yet to be considered.20. the question of simultaneous consideration of the. applications pending at the time of the decision to be taken by the rta, came for consideration before this court in the case of lallu narain v. the regional transport authority, jaipur region, jaipur and ors. ilr (1970) 20 raj. 16 and it was held as under:the true principle of simultaneous consideration should appear to be that the rta should treat all applicants equally and fairly in disposing of their applications and should avoid discrimination in the matter of publication and decision of the applications. the rta should get published all applications pending at the time it decides upon the publication of the applications and should further dispose of all applications which can reasonably be disposed of simultaneously without picking and choosing some only to ensure fair and just disposal. in securing this object, the rta should make reasonable adjustments in taking steps for publications and fixing dates of hearings of applications & extend reasonable accommodation to the applicants.21. with the enunciation of this principle, it was also held that any hard and inflexible formula cannot be laid down that the rta is bound to secure the publication of all applications more or less simultaneously irrespective of varying dates of presentation involving long distances of time with a view to dispose them of simultaneously or that it should arrange to decide simultaneously all applications without any regard for the delay in the disposal of the majority of the applications on account of the belated applications of one of few applicants and the conduct of the subsequent petitioners.22. in the present case the applications of ramesh chand samdani and govind ram were filed in pursuance of the invitation of the applications for the then existing scope of 5:5 and when there were only two vacancies, the rta in the circumstances could not have considered the applications for the three vacancies under the increased scope for which fresh applications were invited.23. the learned counsel for the non-petitioners ramesh chand samdani and govind ram have vehemently stressed; that whatever be the position before the rta the stat was justified in granting permit in view of the circumstances existing at the time of passing the impugned orders because when the stat granted the permits to these non-petitioners, there was vacancy for three permits.24. there cannot be any dispute on the point that if there are ripe applications at the time of taking decision for grant of permit and vacancies more than those for which the applications were published are available, the rta is to take all the applications into consideration simultaneously.25. the position however would be different if fresh applications have been published for the increased scope and it is not be for the benefit of the public at large to wait till the subsequent applications are ripe, then it is permissible for the rta to confine the decision regarding the grant of permits to the vacancies for which the ripe applications before it were filed.26. the learned counsel for the non-petitioners referred to the decision of the case nathu ram v. state transport appellate tribunal and ors. where in following principle has been enunciated:the circumstances that have to be taken into consideration for grant of permits are those which exist on the date when permits are granted and not on the date when proceedings are initiated. it is at the time of grant of permit that the sanctioned strength of the scope under section 47(3) and to be taken into consideration. that is the boundary within which grants are to be made. it is the boundary which exists at the time of grant which is relevant for consideration.27. it was further observed that reference to any anterior fixation of scope under section 47(3) in the circumstances which no longer exist and which limits are no longer effective at the time of granting of permit is an unrealistic evaluation of the situation as the grant is dependent on existing limits.28. the facts of that case were that the application for permit published on june 29, 1968 prior to the revision of scope under section 47(3) on january 28, 1968 came up for consideration on june 24, 1969 but was decided with reference to the previous fixation of scope as existed on june 29, 1968.29. the principle enunciated in the above referred case was relied on by the division bench of this court deciding the case of rajasthan state road transport corporation jaipur v. m/s prem chand & company and ors. d.b. civil special appeal no. 27 of 1981 decided on january 31, 1986. the point raised in that case was that it was not permissible for the tribunal to grant permits to private operators against the additional quota of 25 permits which became available as a result of the increase in the quota for rajasthan from 25 to 50 vehicles. the argument was that fresh applications should have been invited for those additional 25 permits and the applicants who had submitted their applications against the earlier 25 permits could not have been considered for the additional 25 permits. the court held that it was not obligatory for the authority to invite applications for the 25 additional permits which became available as a result of the increase in the quota from 25 to 50 and the tribunal could take into account the aforesaid increase in the number of permits while dealing with the appeals of the private operators, because the said increase in the quota had taken place before the appeals came up for final disposal before the tribunal. their lordships also relied on the full bench decision of karnataka high court in the case of sevanappa songappa motti v. the regional transport authority, bidar and ors. (3) where in view of the facts of the case before their lordships, it was held that no illegality had been committed by the rta in adopting the course of granting permits after the determination of the scope under section 47(3) of the act without inviting applications under section 57 of the act. it was also observed that issuance of notification inviting applications and consideration of the pending applications along with the applications received, pursuant to that notification may be a very desirable course but the provisions of the act do not impose any such restriction on the rta.30. in view of the principles enunciated and observations made in the case of nathu ram v. state transport appellate tribunal and ors. (6) and sevanappa sangappa motto v. case (3) it was held that it cannot be said that the tribunal had acted without jurisdiction in granting permits to private operators against 25 permits which became available as a result of the increase in the quota of all india tourist permits from 25 to 50 during the pendency of appeals before the tribunal.31. it is pertinent to note that the facts and circumstances of the case existing at the time of passing the particular orders in the two cases referred to by the learned judges and of prem chand's case coming before their lordships were altogether different. the circumstances of the present case are that the applications were published for the scope of 5:5 and those applications were considered on december 3, 1985. pursuant to the increase in the scope of 5:5 to 8 ': 8 on august 28, 1985 applications were invited and were published. the applications so published also included the application of the petitioner pradeep chaudhary filed on august 26, 1985. if the applications would not have been invited for the increased scope, the rta could have considered the ripe applications coming before it on december 3, 1985 for all the vacancies. however, when the applications for the increased scope had been invited and they not being published by the date of the meeting dated december 3, 1985 were not ripe, the rta committed no illegality in not considering the applications for the increased scope for the three vacancies created by the increase in the scope. true it is that when the appeals of ramesh chand samdani and govind ram were considered the three vancancies on the route were available but the circumstances of the applications being published for the vacancies under the increased scope was not brought to the notice of the stat. if it would have been so done, we think the stat would have taken into consideration that circumstance and would not have granted permits to the applicants whose applications being ripe on the meeting of december 3, 1985 considered for the two vacancies under the scope of 5:5. the concealing of this fact by the non petitioners-appellants before the tribunal deserves taking a serious note of and the order of the tribunal could be set aside on this ground alone. however, having considered the question on merits we thought it proper to discuss in detail the facts and circumstances of the case and the law applicable to the matter. in view of that discussion, we are inclined to hold that the grant of permits in favour of ramesh chand samdani and govind ram by the tribunal taking into consideration the existing vacancies, not being aware of the situation that applications had been invited for the vacancies created by the increased scope and they had already been published and the applicants were waiting for their applications to be considered on the basis of comparative merit, was not correct and the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.32. on march 11, 1987 an application has been filed by mr. r.r. vyas. learned counsel for the petitioner contending there in that the route in question is overlapped by a draft scheme route of bhilwara-deoli from doongari to shahapura and hence the jurisdiction of the rta, udaipur in increase the scope under section 47(3) of the act is taken away. that one of the existing operators of that route m/s lal chand hargun dass had challenged in the increase in the scope by the rta udaipur on the ground that as the route in question is overlapped by a draft scheme route of bhilwara-deoli from doongari to shahapur. the jurisdiction of the rta udaipur is taken away to increase the scope under section 47(3) of the act. that, against the order of dismissal of the writ petition special appeal no. 910 of 1986 lal chand hargun dass v. state of rajasthan and anr. was filed which was decided on october 31, 1986 and the division bench has held that the rta has no jurisdiction to increase the scope on a route which is over lapped by a draft scheme route. arguments were not advanced on this application. apart from it, d.b. civil special appeal no. 910/86 lal chand hargun dass v. state of rajasthan and anr. referred to in the application was decided along with other similar appeals of rameshwarial and others and the aforesaid principle was enunciated. the question about the overlapping of the route in question was not discussed. we therefore, do not intend to enter into the question of fact as to whether the route in question falls in the category of cases where the rat has no power under section 47(3) to increase the scope and we leave it to the rta to keep this point in view.33. consequently, both the writ petitions filed by pradeep chaudhary are allowed. the impugned orders of the stat dated august 13, 1986 (annexure p/8) and september 4, 1986 (annexure p/8) are set aside and the permits granted to ramesh chand samdani and govind ram on the route in question are cancelled. the rta shall consider the matter and the position of law relating to the increase in the scope. in case the applications published for the three vacancies created by the increase in the scope from 5:5 to 8:8 are considered the applications of non-petitioners no. 3 ramesh chand samdani and govind ram shall also be considered because they, under the impression that their applications were already there had not filed fresh applications in pursuance of the invitation of applications for the increased scope. in the circumstances, costs are made easy.
Judgment:

Kanta Bhatnagar, J.

1. In these two writ petitions petitioner Pradeep Chaudhary has challenged the legality and correctness of the orders passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short 'the STAT 'here in after) dated August 13, 1986, granting one non-temporary stage carriage permit in favour of Ramesh Chand Samdani and the order dated September 4, 1986, granting one non-temporary stage carriage permit in favour of Govind Ram. As the points involved in the two writ petitions arising out of the aforesaid two orders are exactly the same, we propose to dispose them of by one common order.

2. The facts necessary for the disposal of the two petitions are as under: In Udaipur region on an old existing route Bhilwara-Shahpura via Sanganer, Bada Mahuwa, Dhikola etc. etc. there was a scope of three stage carriage to perform three return services on the route. Under that scope one non-temporary stage temporary carriage permit each in favour of Lal Chand, Gyan Chand and Sardar Gyan Singh was granted but Sardar Gyan Singh did not avail the permit. On August 19,1985, the RTA granted one non-temporary stage carriage permit in favour of one Asha Devi. Meanwhile the scope had been increased from 3:3 to 5:5 by the RTA in exercise of the powers vested under the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act' here in after). As such there were two vacancies of permits on the route under the increased scope.

3. Ramesh Chand Samdani applied for the grant of permit over that route by the application dt. June 19, 1985 and Govindram by his application dated July 31, 1985. These applications along with some others were published in the Rajasthan Raj Patra dated September 5, 1985.

4. Under the increased scope the applications of non-petitioners No. 3, along with various other applications came for consideration in the meeting of the RTA held on December 3, 1985. By a Resolution of that date, the RTA granted two non temporary stage carriage permits, one in favour of Kamlesh Kumar Rajendra Kumar and the other in favour of Sharad Chandra Gokhroo. The RTA by its Resolution dated August 28, 1985 had already revised the scope on the route Bhilwara to Shahpura and fixed it to 8:8. Applications were invited for the three vacancies occuring on account of the increase in the scope. Various applications applied for the grant of non-temporary stage carriage permit under the increased scope. Prior to that on August 26, 1985, petitioner Pradeep Chaudhary had suo moto applied for the permit on the route. In the meeting of December 3, 1985 only two vacancies were considered, and as stated earlier, the permits were granted in favour of Kamlesh Kumar Rajendra Kumar and Sharad Chandra Gokhroo. The applications of non-petitioner Ramesh Chand Samdani and Govind Ram who were appellants before the STAT and got the impugned order passed in their favour, and of certain others were rejected on the ground that there was no vacancy. Ramesh Chand Samdani and Govind Ram approached in appeal to the STAT. The learned Member of the STAT taking into consideration the scope of 8:8 on the date of the Resolution of the RTA dated December 3, 1985 allowed the appeals and granted one non-temporary stage carriage permit in favour of each of them. Pradeep Chaudhary whose application was in existence on December 3, 1985 but had been published subsequently for the increased scope of 8:8 felt aggrieved by the orders of the STAT in favour of Ramesh Chand Samdani and Govind Ram and has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court by filing writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. Mr. R.R. Vyas. learned Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the applications of Ramesh Chand Samdani and Govind Ram had been published for the vacancies in the scope of 5:5 but when on December 3, 1985 the two vacancies had been filled up by grant of permits to Kamlesh Kumar Rajendra Kumar and Sharad Chandra Gokhroo there remained no vacancy and the applications of non-petitioners Ramesh Chand Samdani and Govind Ram had been rightly rejected. Mr. Vyas vehemently stressed that the two non-petitioners i.e. Ramesh Chand Samdani and Govind Ram had concealed before the STAT the fact of inviting of applications by the RTA and the applications being published for the three vacancies under the increased scope of 5:5 to 8:8.

6. Mr. Vyas also submitted that one Ramesh Chand Chand Mal whose application had been rejected on December 3, 1985 on the ground of non-availability of vacancy had also filed appeal before the STAT and has been granted one non stage carriage permit for the third vacancy. That, as such there remains no vacancy now and the petitioner and other applicants whose applications have been published under the increased scope have been deprived of the consideration by the RTA.

7. Mr. R.N. Munshi, learned Counsel for Ramesh Chand Samdani and Mr. B.L. Maheshwari learned Counsel for Govind Ram have tried to justify the orders of the STAT on the ground that the scope has already been increased prior to the meeting of the RTA dated December 3, 1985 and therefore five vacancies were available on that day. That, the STAT had rightly taken into consideration the circumstances which existed on Dec. 3, 1985 as well as on the date of passing the impugned orders, that is availability of three more vacancies. That, the application of Pradeep Chaudhary was not ripe for consideration because he had applied on August 26, consideration because he had applied on August 26, 1985 after the publication of the applications to be considered on December 3, 1985 meeting and that too suo moto and therefore, he cannot have any grievance for the grant of non-temporary stage carriage permit to non-petitioners Ramesh Chand Samdani and Govind Ram by the STAT.

8. Learned Counsel for the non-petitioners Ramesh Samdani and Govind Ram submitted that the case is fully covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 27 of 1981 R.S.R.T.C. v. M/s Prem Chand and Ors. decided on January 31, 1986.

9. The pertinent question is whether the S.T.A.T. was justified in granting permits to the persons whose applications were rejected on December 3, 1985 on the ground of non-availability of vacancies, despite the scope having been increased from 5:5 to 8:8 on June 28, 1986.

10. The learned Counsel for the parties have relied on various authorstics throwing light on the point which we would just discuss.

11. In the case of R.Obliswami Naidu v. Add/. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras and Ors. : [1969]3SCR730 , it was held as under:

In view of Sections 47 and 57 before granting a stage carriage permit two independent steps have to be taken. Firstly, there should be a determination by the R.T.A. under Section 47(3) of the number of stage carriages for which stage carriage permits may be granted in that route. Thereafter applications for stage carriage permits in that route should be entertained.

12. In that view of the matter it was held that where the RTA determines the number of stage carriages required on the route at the time of entertaining applications for stage carriage permits, the procedure is not in accordance with law. The apprehension expressed in case contrary view being taken is that it will throw open the door for manipulations and nepotism and the operator who happens to apply for the route first will be in a commanding position.

13. In the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Mangrulpir Joint Motor Service Co. (P) Ltd. and Ors. : AIR1971SC1804 while discussing the power of the RTA under Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, it was observed that the RTA has power to ask for further information from applicants for stage carriage permit for full consideration of applications in the interest of public and it is also within the competence of the RTA to publish the same information in order to enable persons affected to send their representations.

14. The important question is whether the act of the, RAT to reject the applications on December 3, 1985, despite the scope having been increased from 5:5 to 88 on: August 28, 1985 was improper and whether the suo moto application of the petitioner Pradeep Chaudhary filed subsequent to the publication of the applications to be considered on December 3, 198 5 and before the increase in the scope on August 28, 1986 could have been published for the increased scope.

15. In the case of Revanappa Sangappa Mott v. The Regional Transport Authority, Bidar and Ors. AIR 1979 Kar 141 the question of suo moto application at the time when there was no scope, came for consideration and the Full Bench of the Court held that if a person makes sue moto an application to the RTA for over a new route in respect of which there is no, prior determination under Section 47(3) of the Act and thereafter the RTA makes a determination under Section 47(3), it will not be legally impermissible for the RTA to consider and decide at its next sitting whether a permit should be granted to that person without inviting applications. According to their Lordships, the only limitation on the power of the RTA to grant a stage carriage permit under Section 48 of the Act is that the RTA must determine the number of stage carriages for which permits may be granted as required by Section 47(3) of the Act before it can embark upon the consideration of the merits of the applications and the representations against them.

16. It is not in dispute that subsequent to the scope being increased on August 28, 1985 applications for three vacancies were invited and those applications as well as the application of the petitioner filed suo moto on August 26, 1985 were published on January 2, 1986.

17. If the application of the petitioner though filed prior to the meeting of the RTA, dated December 3, 1985 was there but was not ripe because of its not being published till that date the RTA was right in publishing that application on January 2, 1986 along with the applications filed for the grant of permits for the three vacancies created on account of the increase in the scope.

18. The question of the procedure for grant of stage carriage permits under Section 47 of the Act came for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hari Narain Natani v. Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur and Anr. and it was held that the RTA should dispose of all such pending applications as actually become ripe for hearing by the time it decides to convene a meeting for consideration of such applications.

19. As observed above, the application of the petitioner was not ripe on December 3, 1985 when the meeting for granting permit was convened. Annexure P-2 clearly shows that the scope for which the applications were to be considered on December 3, 1985 was 5:5 and there were two vacancies. Even regarding the three vacancies, applications had been invited subsequent to the increase in the scope and they were, as observed above, published on January 2, 1986 and were yet to be considered.

20. The question of simultaneous consideration of the. applications pending at the time of the decision to be taken by the RTA, came for consideration before this Court in the case of Lallu Narain v. The Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur Region, Jaipur and Ors. ILR (1970) 20 Raj. 16 and it was held as under:

The true principle of simultaneous consideration should appear to be that the RTA should treat all applicants equally and fairly in disposing of their applications and should avoid discrimination in the matter of publication and decision of the applications. The RTA should get published all applications pending at the time it decides upon the publication of the applications and should further dispose of all applications which can reasonably be disposed of simultaneously without picking and choosing some only to ensure fair and just disposal. In securing this object, the RTA should make reasonable adjustments in taking steps for publications and fixing dates of hearings of applications & extend reasonable accommodation to the applicants.

21. With the enunciation of this principle, it was also held that any hard and inflexible formula cannot be laid down that the RTA is bound to secure the publication of all applications more or less simultaneously irrespective of varying dates of presentation involving long distances of time with a view to dispose them of simultaneously or that it should arrange to decide simultaneously all applications without any regard for the delay in the disposal of the majority of the applications on account of the belated applications of one of few applicants and the conduct of the subsequent petitioners.

22. In the present case the applications of Ramesh Chand Samdani and Govind Ram were filed in pursuance of the invitation of the applications for the then existing scope of 5:5 and when there were only two vacancies, the RTA in the circumstances could not have considered the applications for the three vacancies under the increased scope for which fresh applications were invited.

23. The learned Counsel for the non-petitioners Ramesh Chand Samdani and Govind Ram have vehemently stressed; that whatever be the position before the RTA the STAT was justified in granting permit in view of the circumstances existing at the time of passing the impugned orders because when the STAT granted the permits to these non-petitioners, there was vacancy for three permits.

24. There cannot be any dispute on the point that if there are ripe applications at the time of taking decision for grant of permit and vacancies more than those for which the applications were published are available, the RTA is to take all the applications into consideration simultaneously.

25. The position however would be different if fresh applications have been published for the increased scope and it is not be for the benefit of the public at large to wait till the subsequent applications are ripe, then it is permissible for the RTA to confine the decision regarding the grant of permits to the vacancies for which the ripe applications before it were filed.

26. The learned Counsel for the non-petitioners referred to the decision of the case Nathu Ram v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Ors. where in following principle has been enunciated:

The circumstances that have to be taken into consideration for grant of permits are those which exist on the date when permits are granted and not on the date when proceedings are initiated. It is at the time of grant of permit that the sanctioned strength of the scope under Section 47(3) and to be taken into consideration. That is the boundary within which grants are to be made. It is the boundary which exists at the time of grant which is relevant for consideration.

27. It was further observed that reference to any anterior fixation of scope under Section 47(3) in the circumstances which no longer exist and which limits are no longer effective at the time of granting of permit is an unrealistic evaluation of the situation as the grant is dependent on existing limits.

28. The facts of that case were that the application for permit published on June 29, 1968 prior to the revision of scope under Section 47(3) on January 28, 1968 came up for consideration on June 24, 1969 but was decided with reference to the previous fixation of scope as existed on June 29, 1968.

29. The principle enunciated in the above referred case was relied on by the Division Bench of this Court deciding the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Jaipur v. M/s Prem Chand & Company and Ors. D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 27 of 1981 decided on January 31, 1986. The point raised in that case was that it was not permissible for the Tribunal to grant permits to private operators against the additional quota of 25 permits which became available as a result of the increase in the quota for Rajasthan from 25 to 50 vehicles. The argument was that fresh applications should have been invited for those additional 25 permits and the applicants who had submitted their applications against the earlier 25 permits could not have been considered for the additional 25 permits. The Court held that it was not obligatory for the authority to invite applications for the 25 additional permits which became available as a result of the increase in the quota from 25 to 50 and the Tribunal could take into account the aforesaid increase in the number of permits while dealing with the appeals of the private operators, because the said increase in the quota had taken place before the appeals came up for final disposal before the Tribunal. Their Lordships also relied on the Full Bench decision of Karnataka High Court in the case of Sevanappa Songappa Motti v. The Regional Transport Authority, Bidar and Ors. (3) where in view of the facts of the case before their Lordships, it was held that no illegality had been committed by the RTA in adopting the course of granting permits after the determination of the scope under Section 47(3) of the Act without inviting applications under Section 57 of the Act. It was also observed that issuance of notification inviting applications and consideration of the pending applications along with the applications received, pursuant to that notification may be a very desirable course but the provisions of the Act do not impose any such restriction on the RTA.

30. In view of the principles enunciated and observations made in the case of Nathu Ram v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Ors. (6) and Sevanappa Sangappa Motto v. case (3) it was held that it cannot be said that the Tribunal had acted without jurisdiction in granting permits to private operators against 25 permits which became available as a result of the increase in the quota of All India Tourist Permits from 25 to 50 during the pendency of appeals before the Tribunal.

31. It is pertinent to note that the facts and circumstances of the case existing at the time of passing the particular orders in the two cases referred to by the learned Judges and of Prem Chand's case coming before their Lordships were altogether different. The circumstances of the present case are that the applications were published for the scope of 5:5 and those applications were considered on December 3, 1985. Pursuant to the increase in the scope of 5:5 to 8 ': 8 on August 28, 1985 applications were invited and were published. The applications so published also included the application of the petitioner Pradeep Chaudhary filed on August 26, 1985. If the applications would not have been invited for the increased scope, the RTA could have considered the ripe applications coming before it on December 3, 1985 for all the vacancies. However, when the applications for the increased scope had been invited and they not being published by the date of the meeting dated December 3, 1985 were not ripe, the RTA committed no illegality in not considering the applications for the increased scope for the three vacancies created by the increase in the scope. True it is that when the appeals of Ramesh Chand Samdani and Govind Ram were considered the three vancancies on the route were available but the circumstances of the applications being published for the vacancies under the increased scope was not brought to the notice of the STAT. If it would have been so done, we think the STAT would have taken into consideration that circumstance and would not have granted permits to the applicants whose applications being ripe on the meeting of December 3, 1985 considered for the two vacancies under the scope of 5:5. The concealing of this fact by the non petitioners-appellants before the Tribunal deserves taking a serious note of and the order of the Tribunal could be set aside on this ground alone. However, having considered the question on merits we thought it proper to discuss in detail the facts and circumstances of the case and the law applicable to the matter. In view of that discussion, we are inclined to hold that the grant of permits in favour of Ramesh Chand Samdani and Govind Ram by the Tribunal taking into consideration the existing vacancies, not being aware of the situation that applications had been invited for the vacancies created by the increased scope and they had already been published and the applicants were waiting for their applications to be considered on the basis of comparative merit, was not correct and the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

32. On March 11, 1987 an application has been filed by Mr. R.R. Vyas. learned Counsel for the petitioner contending there in that the route in question is overlapped by a Draft Scheme route of Bhilwara-Deoli from Doongari to Shahapura and hence the jurisdiction of the RTA, Udaipur in increase the scope under Section 47(3) of the Act is taken away. That one of the existing operators of that route M/s Lal Chand Hargun Dass had challenged in the increase in the scope by the RTA Udaipur on the ground that as the route in question is overlapped by a draft Scheme route of Bhilwara-Deoli from Doongari to Shahapur. the jurisdiction of the RTA Udaipur is taken away to increase the scope under Section 47(3) of the Act. That, against the order of dismissal of the Writ Petition Special Appeal No. 910 of 1986 Lal Chand Hargun Dass v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. was filed which was decided on October 31, 1986 and the Division Bench has held that the RTA has no jurisdiction to increase the scope on a route which is over lapped by a Draft Scheme route. Arguments were not advanced on this application. Apart from it, D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 910/86 Lal Chand Hargun Dass v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. referred to in the application was decided along with other similar appeals of Rameshwarial and others and the aforesaid principle was enunciated. The question about the overlapping of the route in question was not discussed. We therefore, do not intend to enter into the question of fact as to whether the route in question falls in the category of cases where the RAT has no power under Section 47(3) to increase the scope and we leave it to the RTA to keep this point in view.

33. Consequently, both the writ petitions filed by Pradeep Chaudhary are allowed. The impugned orders of the STAT dated August 13, 1986 (Annexure P/8) and September 4, 1986 (Annexure P/8) are set aside and the permits granted to Ramesh Chand Samdani and Govind Ram on the route in question are cancelled. The RTA shall consider the matter and the position of law relating to the increase in the scope. In case the applications published for the three vacancies created by the increase in the scope from 5:5 to 8:8 are considered the applications of non-petitioners No. 3 Ramesh Chand Samdani and Govind Ram shall also be considered because they, under the impression that their applications were already there had not filed fresh applications in pursuance of the invitation of applications for the increased scope. In the circumstances, costs are made easy.