Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In the interests of justice, it is desirable that the Transport authorities take a little greater care when dealing with the rights, of the claimants for permits. Had the orders of the departmental authorities and the advertisements published with respect to the application of the petitioner, been more clear and explicit, tin's case would have taken much lesser time before me than it has actually done. The petitioner's application dated 9th of August 1957 seeks the diversion of the route for all the three permits from Sunam-Budblada via Jakhepal to Sunam-Rudhlada via Bhiki, the actual words stated being 'diversion is required by Bhiki instead of Chima.' In the application dated 21st of August 1957, the petitioner claimed regularisation at a large number of permits, including the three in question, on Sunam-Budhlada route, for a period of three years. It is important to note that, in this application, as against the permits Nos. 165, 167, and 168 Sunam-Budhlada route, it was not mentioned that these may be regularised for the deviated route, The petitioner thus cannot be deemed, as is contended by the counsel, to have claimed regularisation of any permit on the deviated route, nor could the prospective objectors be considered to have notice of such a claim. It may, in this connection be kept in mind that no stage carriage permit can under the law be granted in respect of any route or area not specified in the application and every such permit has to be expressed to be valid only for a specified route or routes or for a specified area (see Section 48 of the Motor Vehicles Act).

shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit;

* * * * *

6. It is true that this section, does not apply to a temporary permit but what the petitioner himself claims is that his regularised permit contains a deviation from the old route and is to operate on a new route or in a new area and if this be so, then obviously what is intended to be achieved by the impugned order is a deviation, not in a temporary permit, but in a regular permit.

And this is exactly the position taken by the petitioner now, but it may be argued that if the petitioner is found to have only claimed the regularisation of the permit on the original route, then his claim for deviation before the Regional Transport Authority should also be considered to have been of the temporary permit.