THE HANUMAN TRANSPORT CO PVT LTD vs. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2017

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

W.P.Nos.23198 – 23201/2017 c/w W.P.Nos.23147 – 23189, 23190 – 23191, 23192 – 23196 & 23376 – 23380/2017 (MV)

IN W.P.Nos.23198 – 23201/2017:

BETWEEN :

BHARAT KUMAR S/O SANATH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT GANESH KRUPA, BALMATTA NEW ROAD, MANAGLORE

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI A.S.PARASARA KUMAR, ADV.) AND :

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A. PATIL, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADV. FOR SRI HAREESH BHANDARY, ADV.FOR R-3.)

- 2 -

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY R-1 IN GRANTING THE PERMITS VIDE SUB Nos.127/16-17, 128/16- 17, 129/16-17 & 130/16-17 FOR THE ROUTE UDUPI TO KARKALA AND KARKALA TO UDUPI – 7 SINGLE TRIPS PER DAY WITH ONE VEHICLE i.e., 56 SINGLE TRIPS WITH 8 VEHICLES VIDE ANNEX-F, G, H & J RESPECTIVELY.

W.P.Nos.23147 – 23189/2017:

BETWEEN :

- 3 - 6. SANDEEP S/O YOGEENDRANATH AGE 42 YEARS, AJJARKADU UDUPI-576101

...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI S.VIJAYA SHANKAR, SENIOR ADV. FOR SRI M.E.NAGESH, ADV.)

AND :

- 4 - RAJATHADRI, MANIPAL, UDUPI-576104

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A. PATIL, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADV. FOR SRI HAREESH BHANDARY, ADV.FOR R-3.)

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, UDUPI ALL DATED 21.03.2017 VIDE ANNEX-J1 TO J43.

IN W.P.Nos.23190 – 23191/2017:

BETWEEN :

AJITH U. SHENOY S/O K.UMESH SHENOY, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, "DAMODHAR", SRI VITTALA MOTOR SERVICE, OT ROAD, SHIMOGA-577201

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI A.S.PARASARA KUMAR, ADV.)

AND :

- 5 - MANGALURU DIVISION, MANGALURU-575004

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A. PATIL, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADV. FOR SRI HAREESH BHANDARY, ADV.FOR R-3.)

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE REOCRDS AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY R-1 IN GRANTING THE PERMITS VIDE SUB NOS.135/16-17 AND 139/16-17 DATED 21.03.2017 FOR THE ROUTES BAINDUR TO SHIMOGA AND BACK 2 SINGLE TRIPS PER DAY WITH ONE VEHICLE IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION VIDE ANNEX-L AND M.

IN W.P.Nos.23192 – 23196/2017:

BETWEEN :

(BY SRI S.VIJAYA SHANKAR, SENIOR ADV. FOR SRI M.E.NAGESH, ADV.)

- 6 - AND :

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A. PATIL, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADV. FOR SRI HAREESH BHANDARY, ADV.FOR R-3.)

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, UDUPI DATED 21.03.2017 IN SUBJECT NO.131/2016-17, 132/2016-17 & 140/2016-17 AT ANNEX-F1 TO F3.

IN W.P.Nos.23376 – 23380/2017:

BETWEEN :

THE HANUMAN TRANSPORT CO. PVT. LTD., NO.76, BADAGABETTU, UDUPI-576010 REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR (SRI GOPALAKRISHNA NAYAK S/O P.S.NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.)

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI A.S.PARASARA KUMAR, ADV.)

- 7 - AND :

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR A. PATIL, AGA FOR R-1 & R-2; SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADV. FOR SRI HAREESH BHANDARY, ADV.FOR R-3.)

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY R-1 IN GRANTING THE PERMITS VIDE SUB. Nos.135/16-17, 136/16 AND 17, 137/16 AND 17, 138/16 AND 17 AND 139/16-17 DATED 21.03.2017 FOR THE ROUTES BAINDUR TO SHIVAMOGGA AND BACK 2 SINGLE TRIPS PER DAY WITH ONE VEHICLE IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION VIDE ANNEX-L, M, N, P & Q.

THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 08.06.2017, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, S.SUJATHA J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

- 8 - O R D E R

These matters involve common questions, hence, the same are clubbed, heard together and disposed of by this common order.

- 9 - services with a gap of one minute. Thus, taking note of the road congestion and traffic, the then District Magistrate of D.K. District had issued a Notification under Section 115 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [‘Act’, for short], restricting the issue of fresh permits to the city of Udupi by means of Notification dated 26.7.1994 which came into force from 1.9.1994. The said Notification dated 26.7.1994 was modified by allowing the Respondent No.3’s fresh services to enter Udupi Bus stand as per Notification dated 31.7.2004. The same was further modified by the Notification dated 6.2.2014.

- 10 - is that, despite the directions issued by this Court, no action has been taken and assignment of timings made by the authorities went on in a helter-skelter manner absolutely without there being any application of mind. Hence, Writ Petitions 17008-17051/2006 and connected matters were filed before this Court seeking for rationalization of timings of all stage carriage permits. In the said writ petitions, this Court has directed the authorities to rationalize the timings. But, no action has been taken by the authorities to comply the directions issued by this Court. Further, one of the petitioners and the Udupi City Bus Owners’ Association have filed writ petition Nos.10991-10992/2017 with the prayer to issue a writ of mandamus to the Secretary, RTA, Udupi to rationalize the timings of the existing stage carriage permits operating in the district before assigning any fresh timings to the permits granted or variations granted. The Secretary had called for the timings meeting on 16.3.2017 wherein 728 subjects

- 11 - were listed in the agenda for assignment of timings. On 14.3.2017, when the matter had come up before this Court for admission, after arguments, the learned Government Advocate undertook that no timings shall be assigned by the Secretary on 16.3.2017. The said writ petitions are pending before this Court. When the matters stood thus, the respondent/RTA granted 58 fresh permits to the respondent/Corporation and assigned the timings as claimed. Aggrieved by the same, these petitions are filed.

- 12 - routes in the city of Udupi and other inter regional routes within Udupi Districts are non monopoly routes and there shall not be any preference to the State Transport Undertaking while granting stage carriage permit. The applications filed by the private operators for grant of permits are pending for want of assignment of timings for the past 8-10 years. About 728 subjects were listed in the agenda of the Meeting scheduled on 16.3.2017 whereas in these cases, the Respondent No.3 filed an application for fresh grant of permits on 7.3.2017, route survey was conducted on 15.3.2017 and permits were granted and issued on 21.3.2017 in terms of the routes and timings claimed by the State Transport Undertakings. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that no reasons are assigned by the Regional Transport Authority to grant fresh permits and assign the timings to the State Transport Undertakings despite objections filed and the pendency of the writ petition,

- 13 - regarding the rationalization of timings was brought to the notice of the Regional Transport Authority.

- 14 - 115 of the Act, no fresh permits would have been granted to the respondent/Corporation to operate within the Udupi city limits. It was further contended that the quasi judicial authority has to act within the legal parameters to enforce the notifications issued from time to time in order to achieve the object of the Act. Giving a go bye to the said Notifications and the undertaking given by the learned Additional Government Advocate before this Court in writ petition Nos.10991-10992/2017 would certainly indicate the attitude of the Authority, disobeying the orders of this Court. The functioning of the respondent-Authority suggests that an attempt is made to deprive the rights of the existing operators. It is the fundamental principle that before assigning the timings, the existing operators on the route in question are to be necessarily heard. The normal procedure adopted by the RTA for all these days was to grant and issue the permits and direct the Secretary to assign the timings,

- 15 - after considering the timings of the rival operators on the route in question. Surprisingly, the RTA proceeded to assign the timings as claimed by the respondent/Corporation in the route claimed, not even calling for any objections or hearing the existing sector operators. It is total disrespect to the judicial orders and is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

- 16 - Sri. Vijayashankar, submitted that in the history of the RTA, Udupi, so far no permit was granted and issued as per the routes and timings claimed by the applicant. Indisputably, 728 permits are pending consideration for assignment of timings, de hors the same, granting fresh permits to the Respondent No.3 to deprive the rights of the private operators who are waiting in the queue since many years is wholly unjustifiable. State Transport Undertakings cannot enjoy a special status in the non notified route. It is not in dispute that Udupi city is a non monopoly route. If that being so, there was no special occasion or any request made by the travelling public to grant fresh permits to the State Transport Undertakings. The Notification dated 26.7.1994 as well as 31.7.2004 clearly shows that there are plenty of buses operating in the area with short time intervals. The traffic in the area is congested. Considering the same, the District Magistrate had issued the Notifications under Section 115 of the Act. The

- 17 - Notification dated 31.7.2004 further modified by the Notification dated 6.2.2014, specifies that no new stage carriage vehicles shall be allowed to enter into Udupi city. It is only the existing stage carriage permits which are permitted to operate in the Udupi city limits subject to conditions. These Notifications and the relevancy of the same were brought to the notice of the respondent- Authority by filing detailed objections in writing but in vain. The arguments of the petitioners were not addressed by the RTA before passing the order of fresh grant to the State Transport Undertakings.

- 18 - Karnataka issued the Notification dated 6.8.2009 formulating the routes for plying stage carriages. None of the routes now claimed and granted fall within this notification. In support of his contention, learned Counsel placed reliance on the Judgment of this Court in Writ Petition Nos.36515-36518/2000 [DD- 27.11.2000] wherein, the learned single Judge of this Court has held that the State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authority henceforth shall not grant any stage carriage permit nor allot timings under the permits already granted until and unless the State Government formulates and specifies the routes for plying of stage carriage permits. This Judgment was rendered in the context of Section 68[3][ca] of the Act. Until the route is formulated and specified by the State Government under Section 68[3][ca] of the Act, the Regional Transport Authority and State Transport Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain the applications and applicants moving the applications for

- 19 - permit of stage carriages not specified in the routes are to be rejected not being in conformity with Section 72 and the proviso thereof. It was further submitted that this order of the learned single Judge was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.8043-8069/2000 and connected matters.

- 20 - Government Advocate before this Court. The 58 permits for which fresh grants are now issued are all different permits not listed in the agenda of 16.3.2017. The Notification dated 31.7.2004, in fact, supports the case of the respondent/Corporation. Modifying the notification dated 26.7.1994, Notification dated 31.7.2004 was issued relaxing the conditions of the said Notification dated 26.7.1994 to the State Transport Undertakings. Except the State Transport Undertakings, all other stage carriage vehicles were governed by the Notification dated 26.7.1994. The subsequent notification dated 6.2.2014 referred to by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would not disturb the relaxation granted to the State Transport Undertakings as per the Notification dated 31.7.2004.

- 21 - CHANDRAPRAKASH SHETTY v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS’ in W.P. Nos.29663- 29664/2014 and connected matters – DD-31.5.2016] whereby this Court has held that the Corporation having sought for operating in the town of Udupi by applying for grant of permits cannot be held as either contrary to the tenor of the Notification dated 31.7.2004 or 26.7.1994. The respondent-Corporation is a public sector undertaking, to cater to the needs of the travelling public and the residents of Udupi sought for grant of permit assigning the timings. There is no embargo in law to grant permit to the respondent/Corporation. The private operators are objecting the grant of permit to the State Transport Undertakings in order to have their monopoly in the route in question. The Regional Transport Authority examined the requirements of the additional permits in the area on the demand of the travelling public and extensively considering the objections filed by the rival

- 22 - operators granted the permit and assigned the timings. There is no legal impediment to grant permit and assign the timings as claimed by the State Transport Undertakings. Ultimately, it is the paramount interest of travelling public which has to be considered and not the interest of the existing operators. No right is vested with the operators to object any fresh permit to be granted in the Udupi town. It was further contended that the petitioners have not exhausted the alternative remedy of appeal provided under the Act. No special circumstance is made out by the petitioners to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India circumventing the statutory remedies available under the Act. Thus, the writ petitions require to be rejected in limine.

- 23 - [a] ‘T.R. NAGARAJ AND OTHERS v. KARNATAKA STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY’ [W.A. Nos.8043-8069/2000 – DD-5.2.2001]

[b] ‘M/s. DEEPAK APPARELS PVT. LTD., v. CITY UNION BANK LIMITED AND OTHERS’ [W.P. No.28182/2013 - DD – 22.3.2016]

- 24 - operators, the order cannot be construed as illegal or arbitrary.

- 25 - As could be seen from the impugned order, it is manifestly clear that the arguments advanced at the hands of the operators were not considered and addressed by the Regional Transport Authority. It is obvious that when 728 permits are pending for assignment of timings, circumventing the same, issuance of fresh grants and assigning the timings as claimed by the Corporation without assigning valid reasons warrants interference by this Court. Moreover, the issue relating to the jurisdiction of the RTA to pass the impugned order vis-à-vis Section 68[3][ca] of the Act requires examination which has not been properly considered and addressed by the Authority. The petitions cannot be rejected at the threshold on the ground of alternative remedy.

- 26 - CEMENTS AND ANOTHER’ reported in [2005] 6 SCC 499 wherein, it is observed thus: “17. We shall first deal with the plea regarding alternative remedy as raised by the appellant-State. Except for a period when Article 226 was amended by the Constitution (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, the power relating to alternative remedy has been considered to be a rule of self imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion and never a rule of law. Despite the existence of an alternative remedy it is within the jurisdiction of discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. At the same time, it cannot be lost sight of that though the matter relating to an alternative remedy has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the case, normally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy. If somebody approaches the High Court without availing the alternative remedy provided the High Court should ensure that he has made out a

- 27 - strong case or that there exist good grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction. 18. The Constitution Benches of this Court in K.S. Rashid and Sons v. Income Tax Investigation Commission and Ors., AIR (1954) SC 207; Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah and Ors., AIR (1955) SC 425; Union of India v. T.R. Varma, AIR (1957) SC 882; State of U.P. and Ors. v. Mohammad Nooh, AIR (1958) SC 86 and M/s K.S. Venkataraman and Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Madras, AIR (1966) SC 1089, held that Article 226 of the Constitution confers on all the High Courts a very wide power in the matter of issuing writs. However, the remedy of writ is an absolutely discretionary remedy and the High Court has always the discretion to refuse to grant any writ if it is satisfied that the aggrieved party can have an adequate or suitable relief elsewhere. The Court, in extraordinary circumstances, may exercise the power if it comes to the conclusion that there has been a breach of principles of

- 28 - natural justice or procedure required for decision has not been adopted. 19. Another Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. v. Bhailal Bhai , AIR (1964) SC 1006, held that the remedy provided in a writ jurisdiction is not intended to supersede completely the modes of obtaining relief by an action in a civil court or to deny defence legitimately open in such actions. The power to give relief under Article 226 of the Constitution is a discretionary power. Similar view has been re-iterated in N.T. Veluswami Thevar v. G. Raja Nainar and Ors., AIR (1959) SC 422; Municipal Council, Khurai and Anr. v. Kamal Kumar and Anr., AIR (1965) SC 1321; Siliguri Municipality and Ors. v. Amalendu Das and Ors., AIR (1984) SC 653; S.T. Muthusami v. K. Natarajan and Ors., AIR (1988) SC 616; R.S.R.T.C. and Anr. v. Krishna Kant and Ors., AIR (1995) SC 1715;Kerala State Electricity Board and Anr. v. Kurien E. Kalathil and Ors., AIR (2000) SC 2573;A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S.

- 29 - Chellappan and Ors., [2000] 7 SCC 695; and L.L. Sudhakar Reddy and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors., [2001] 6 SCC 634; Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., [2001] 8 SCC 509; Pratap Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana, [2002] 7 SCC 484 and G.K.N. Driveshafts (India) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer and Ors., [2003] 1 SCC 72. 20. In Harbans Lal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., [2003] 2 SCC 107, this Court held that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion and the Court must consider the pros and cons of the case and then may interfere if it comes to the conclusion that the petitioner seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; where there is failure of principles of natural justice or where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged.

- 30 - 21. In G. Veerappa Pillai v. Raman and Raman Ltd., AIR (1952) SC 192; Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd., AIR (1985) SC 330; Ramendra Kishore Biswas v. State of Tripura, AIR (1999) SC 294; Shivgonda Anna Patil and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., AIR (1999) SC 2281; C.A. Abraham v. I.T.O. Kottayam and Ors., AIR (1961) SC 609;Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa and Anr., AIR (1983) SC 603; H.B. Gandhi v. M/s Gopinath and Sons, [1992] Suppl. 2 SCC 312; Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Ors., AIR (1999) SC 22; Tin Plate Co. of India Ltd. v. State of Bihar and Ors., AIR (1999) SC 74; Sheela Devi v. Jaspal Singh, [1999] 1 SCC 209 and Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan and Ors. [2001] 6 SCC 569, this Court held that where hierarchy of appeals is provided by the statute, party must exhaust the statutory remedies before resorting to writ jurisdiction. 22. If, as was noted in Ram and Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana and Ors. AIR (1985) SC

- 31 - 1147 the appeal is from "Caeser to Caeser's wife" the existence of alternative remedy would be a mirage and an exercise in futility. In the instant case the writ petitioners had indicated the reasons as to why they thought that the alternative remedy would not be efficacious. Though the High Court did not go into that plea relating to bias in detail, yet it felt that alternative remedy would not be a bar to entertain the writ petition. Since the High Court has elaborately dealt with the question as to why the statutory remedy available was not efficacious, it would not be proper for this Court to consider the question again. When the High Court had entertained a writ petition notwithstanding existence of an alternative remedy this Court while dealing with the matter in an appeal should not permit the question to be raised unless the High Court's reasoning for entertaining the writ petition is found to be palpably unsound and irrational. Similar view was expressed by this Court in First Income-Tax Officer, Salem v. M/s. Short Brothers (P) Ltd., [1966] 3 SCR 84 and State of U.P. and Ors. v.

- 32 - M/s. Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd., [1977] 2 SCC 724. That being the position, we do not consider the High Court's judgment to be vulnerable on the ground that alternative remedy was not availed. There are two well recognized exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion of statutory remedies. First is when the proceedings are taken before the forum under a provision of law which is ultra vires, it is open to a party aggrieved thereby to move the High Court for quashing the proceedings on the ground that they are incompetent without a party being obliged to wait until those proceedings run their full course. Secondly, the doctrine has no application when the impugned order has been made in violation of the principles of natural justice. We may add that where the proceedings itself are an abuse of process of law the High Court in an appropriate case can entertain a writ petition.”

Keeping in mind, the legal proposition enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the plea of the respondents to

- 33 - reject the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy deserves rejection.

- 34 - by fourth respondent operating within city of Udupi or catering to the requirement of Udupi population, in particular since Udupi town has grown by metes and bounds and several new layouts in an around Udupi having come up.”

- 35 - 8069/2000 and connected matters [DD-5.2.2001] whereby this Court has observed thus: “As and when the power is exercised by the Government specifying a particular route or routes keeping in view the larger public interest, the applicants/operators and the permit granting Authorities will have to abide by it and the route which has to be specified in the application can be no different from the route formulated by the Government. Clause [ca], in our view, goes so far and not beyond that.

“As and when such routes are specified, the application for permit will have to be in conformity with the Government’s Order and at the same time, we would like to make it clear that it is not incumbent upon the State Government to formulate the routes covering the entire length and breadth of the State at a time.”

- 36 - 21. It is not in dispute that in pursuance to the amendment to Section 68[3][ca] of the Act, the Government of Karnataka has issued the Notification dated 6.8.2009 formulating the routes under Section 68[3][ca] of the Act. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that the routes claimed by the respondent- Corporation do not fall within any of the routes so formulated by the State Government under the said Notification. This is a factual aspect which ought to have been considered by the respondent-Authority, particularly, in view of the specific contention raised by the petitioners and the written submissions filed in support of their arguments. This point is not addressed by the respondent-Authority while granting fresh permits to the respondent/Corporation. Similarly, the respondent-Authority while exercising the quasi judicial function is required to assign the reasons for granting fresh permits/assigning timings, considering the objections of the rival operators. As could be seen from

- 37 - the impugned order, the respondent-Authority has rejected the objections of the rival operators in one line without assigning the valid reasons. It is settled law that any order passed by the quasi judicial authority without assigning valid reasons is void-ab-initio and in violation of principles of natural justice. It is obvious that the order of the quasi judicial authority is the base which should reflect the judicial mind of the Authority, the same is lacking herein.

- 38 - to grant fresh permits and assign the timings as claimed, on the technical ground that these applications were not listed in the agenda of the RTA Meeting scheduled on 16.3.2017. Admittedly, chapter VI of the Act is not applicable to the facts of the present case. As could be seen, a hasty decision is taken by the respondent-Authority considering the applications of the respondent/Corporation in a hurriedly manner. When the other permit holders are waiting in the queue for assignment of timings, considering the case of the respondent/Corporation in a preferential manner would be discriminatory violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India, particularly, the route in question being a non- notified route.

- 39 - accordance with law and pass appropriate orders afresh, assigning valid reasons, after hearing the Corporation as well as the sector operators.

Accordingly, writ petitions stand disposed of.

Sd/- JUDGE

AN/-