TMI Blog1968 (8) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant is the State Road Transport Corporation of the State of Maharashtra constituted under the Road Transport Corporation Act (64 of 1950). Respondent No. 1 who is a private stage carriage operator alongwith other such private operators, had applied for renewal of stage carriage permits which they were holding and which permits were to expire on March 31, 1961. The Provincial Transport Services (the predecessor of the appellant) had been also operating the stage carriage service in the adjoining and nearby areas and had made applications sometime in January, 1961 for grant of substantive permits for the same routes. The Provincial Transport Services had published a scheme under s. 68D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter call ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the 'R.T.A.') on October 9 and 10, 1964 and the R.T.A. passed a common order by which all the applications for renewal made by private operators were rejected and the permits were granted to the appellant. This order of the R.T.A. was challenged by the private operators in Special Civil Application No. 603 of 1964. One of the grounds on which the order was challenged was that the R.T.A. was not validly constituted. By its order dated January 14, 1965, the High Court quashed the order passed by the R.T.A., holding that it was not properly constituted on October 13, 1964 when it passed the common order. Thereafter the applications for renewal of permits and for fresh grant of permits were again considered by the R.T.A. at its meeting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The joint application stated that the appellant and the private operators, with a view to end all litigation, had agreed to settle the matter on certain terms. One the terms was that the Special Civil applications filed were to. be withdrawn. The application for compromise was considered by the R.T.A. at its meeting held on September 10 and 11, 1965. The private operators including respondent No. 1 assured the R.T.A. that they would withdraw the petitions pending in the High Court. Upon 'such assurance the R.T.A. considered the matter at the meeting and after hearing the parties decided that the appellant who was granted substantive permits by its order dated May 10, 1965, would commence operation on the routes described in Sch. 'A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
