Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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 have been rightly rejected. Mr. Vyas vehemently stressed that the two non-petitioners i.e. Ramesh Chand Samdani and Govind Ram had concealed before the S.T.A.T. the fact of inviting of applications by the R.T.A. and the applications being published for the three vacancies under the increased scope of 5:5 to 8:8.

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 R.T.A. 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 R.T.A. the S.T. A.T. was justified in granting permit in view of the circumstances existing at the time of passing the impugned orders because when the S.T.A.T. granted the permits to these non-petitioners, there was vacancy for three permits.

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 R.T.A. 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 R.T.A. 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 vacancies on the route were available but the circumstance of the applications being published for the vacancies under the increased scope was not brought to the notice of the S.T.A.T. If it would have been so done, we think the S.T.A.T. 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 were 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.

33. Consequently, both the writ petitions filed by Pradeep Chaudhary are allowed. The impugned orders of the S.T.A.T. 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 R.T.A. 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.