JUDGMENT 1. SUB-SECTION (1) of Section 44, in chapter IV of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), dealing with the constitution of transport Authorities, reads as hereinbelow quoted : "section 44 (1): The State government shall, by notification in the Official Gazette, constitute for the State, a State Transport authority to exercise and discharge the powers and functions specified in sub-section (3), and shall in like manner constitute Regional transport Authorities to exercise and discharge throughout such areas (in this Chapter referred to as regions) as may be specified in the notification, in respect of each regional Transport Authority, the powers and functions conferred by or under this Chapter on such Au thorities ; provided that in Part C States the State Government may abstain from constituting any Regional transport Authority ; provided further that the area specified as the region of a regional Transport Authority shall in no case be less than an entire district, or the whole area of a presidency town. " Section 45 of the Act, dealing with 'general provisions as to applications for permits," reads as follows : "every application for a permit shall be made to the Regional transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles: provided that if it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles in two or more regions lying within the same State, the application shall be made to the Regional Transport authority of the region in which the major portion of the proposed route or area lies, and in case the portion of the proposed route or area in each of the regions is approximately equal, to the Regional transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to keep the vehicle or vehicles. Provided further that if it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles in two or more regions lying in different States, the application shall be made to the Regional transport Authority of the region in which the applicant resides or has his principal place of business. " Sections 46 to 48, in Chapter IV, respectively deal with applications for stage carriage permits, procedure in considering applications for stage carriage permit, the power to restrict the number of stage carriages and imposition of conditions on such permits. " Sections 46 to 48, in Chapter IV, respectively deal with applications for stage carriage permits, procedure in considering applications for stage carriage permit, the power to restrict the number of stage carriages and imposition of conditions on such permits. Sections 49 to 51, Sections 52 to 53, and sections 54 a 56 deal respectively with similar matters concerning contract carriage permit, private carrier's permit and public carrier's permit. Section 57, inter alia, contains provisions for grant of permits by the Regional Transport authority. I need remind myself of the provisions contained in sub-sections (2) to (7) of section 57, which deal with the procedure for grant or refusal of stage carriage permits, namely, (2) "an application for a stage carriage permit or a public carder's permit shall be made not less than six weeks before the date on which it is desired that the permit shall take effect, or, if the Regional transport Authority appoints dates for the receipt of such applications, on such dates. (3) On receipt of an application for a stage carriage permit or a public carrier's permit, the regional Transport Authority shall make the application available for inspection at the office of the authority and shall publish the application or the substance thereof in the prescribed manner together with a notice of the date before which representations in connection therewith may be submitted and the date, not being less than thirty days from such publication, on which, and the time and place at which the application and any representations received will be considered : provided that, if the grant of any permit in accordance with the application or with modifications would have the effect of increasing the number of vehicles operating in the region, or in any area or on any route within the region, under the class of permits to which the application relates, beyond the limit fixed in that behalf under sub-section (3) of section 47 or sub-section (2) of section 55, as the case may be, the Regional Transport authority may summarily refuse the application without following the procedure laid down in this sub-section. (4) No representation in connection with -an application referred to in sub-section (3) shall be considered by the Regional transport Authority unless it is made in writing before the appointed date and unless a copy thereof is furnished simultaneously to the applicant by the person making such representation. (4) No representation in connection with -an application referred to in sub-section (3) shall be considered by the Regional transport Authority unless it is made in writing before the appointed date and unless a copy thereof is furnished simultaneously to the applicant by the person making such representation. (5) When any representation such as is referred to in sub-section (3) is made, the Regional transport Authority shall dispose of the application at a public hearing at which the applicant and the person making the representation shall have an opportunity of being heard either in person or by a duly authorised representative. (6) When any representation has been made by the persons or authorities referred to in section 50 to the effect that the number of contract carriages for which permits have already been granted in any region or any area within a region is sufficient for or in excess of the needs of the region or of such area, whether such representation is made in connection with a particular application for the grant of a contract carriage permit or otherwise, the Regional Transport authority may take any such steps as it considers appropriate for the hearing of the representation in the presence of any persons likely to be affected thereby. (7) When a Regional Transport authority refuses an application for a permit of any kind, it shall give to the applicant in writing its reasons for the refusal. " I need not concern myself with the other provisions in the said Chapter, dealing inter alia, with duration and renewal of permits, general conditions of permit, general forms of permits cancellation and suspension of permits transfer of permits, temporary permits, inter-State Transport Commission, appeals, Revisions and the like. 2. THE scheme of Chapter IV is such that it makes Regional Transport authorities masters in the matter of grant of carriage permit in their respective regions, The powers of regional Transport Authorities are, however, subordinate to the provisions of chapter IVA of the Act, which make special "provisions relating to State transport Undertakings with the object of nationalising transport services, carrying passengers or goods or both, by road in motor vehicles, for hire or reward. Clause (b) of Section 68a, in chapter IVA, defines a "state transport Undertaking" as follows : (b) "state Transport undertaking" means any undertaking providing road transport service, where such undertaking is carried on by,- (i) the Central Government or a State Government; (ii) any Road Transport corporation established under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 ; (iii) the Delhi Road Transport authority established under section 3 of the Delhi Road Transport authority Act, 1950 ; (iv) any municipality or any corporation or company owned or controlled by the State government. " It is not disputed that the respondent No. 2, The North Bengal State transport Corporation, is such an undertaking. Section 68c, in Chapter iva, reads as follows : "where any State Transport undertaking is of opinion that for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical and properly co-ordinated road transport service, it is necessary in the public interest that road transport services in general or any particular class of such service in relation to any area or route or portion thereof should be run and operated by the State Transport Undertaking, whether to the exclusion, complete or partial, of other persons, or othewise, the State Transport undertaking may prepare a scheme giving particulars of the nature of the services proposed to be rendered, the area or route proposed to be covered and such other particulars respecting thereto as may be prescribed, and shall cause every such scheme to be published in the Official Gazette and also in such other manner as the State government may direct. " Section 68d provides for objections to such schemes by persons affected, consideration of objections and approval, modification and publication of schemes. Section 68f further provides as follows: "(1) Where, in pursuance of an approved scheme, any State transport undertaking applies in the manner specified in Chapter IV for a stage carriage permit or a public carrier's permit or a contract carriage permit in respect of a notified area or notified route, the regional Transport Authority shall issue such permit to the State transport Undertaking, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Chapter IV. (2) For the purpose of giving effect to the approved scheme in respect of a notified area or notified route, the Regional Transport authority may, by order,- (a) refuse to entertain any application for the renewal of any other permit; (b) cancel any existing permit ; (c) modify the terms of any existing permit so as to- (i) render the permit ineffective beyond a specified date; (ii) reduce the number of vehicles authrised to be used under the permit; (iii) curtail the area or route covered by the permit in so far as such permit relates to the notified area or notified route. (3) For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that no appeal shall lie against any action taken, (or order passed, by the Regional transport Authority under subsection (1) or sub-section (2 ). " The provisions of Chapter IVA have overriding effect, as will appear from Section 68b, which I quote hereinbelow: 68b. The provisions of this chapter and the rules and orders made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistant therewith contained in chapter IV of this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law. " Keeping in view the above provisions of law I need consider the points raised in this Rule. 3. THE districts of Cooch Behar, jalpaiguri and Darjeeling are served by a stage carriage route, covering about 162 miles through Cooch [behar Falakata - Dalgaon - Goyerkata -Dhupguri-Mal-Siliguri-Jalpaiguri. The petititioner firm had permits to run five stage carriages on a section of the said route between Jalpaiguri-Siliguri, covering a distance of about 28 miles, which was later on extended up to haldibari through an extended route. On july 12, 1962, the State Government published a modified scheme, at the instance of the respondent No. 2-a State transport Undertaking, to the following effect: "in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (2) and (3)of section 68d of the Motor Vehicles act, 1939 (4 of 1939), the Governor after considering the objections filed under sub-section (1) of the said section to the scheme prepared by the North Bengal St. Transport corporation being a State transport Undertaking in West Bengal and published in pursuance to section 68c of the said Act with notification dated 24th November, 1961 at pages 4270-4271 of Part I of the calcutta Gazette of the 21st December, 1961 and after giving opportunities to the objectors and their repreesntatives and the representatives of the North Bengal State transport Corporation to be heard in the matter, is pleased to modify the said scheme and publish in the schedule below the scheme as so modified :-The Schedule. . . Modified Scheme. The State Transport Undertaking carried on by the North Bengal, state Transport Corporation shall, for the purpose of providing an efficient, adequate, economical aand propertly co-ordinated road transport service operate and run in the public interest passenger road transport services in relation to the area and routes : particulars whereof are specified below, to the exclusion of other persons except persons who may have been operating on the 1st December, 1961, any passanger transport service in the said area and in the said routes, subject to the condition that at no time after the publication of this notification in the "calcutta gazette" shall the number of vehicles to be used by such persons for operating such passenger transport service execeed the number of vehicles so used by them on the 1st september, 1961. " (Particulars omitted.)The petitioner firm, falling under the category of exception contained in the scheme, were permitted to run their stage carriages on the nationalised route and to undertake specified number of trips between Siliguri and jalpaiguri and also other specified number of trips between Jalpaiguri and haldibari. Alleging that the number of trips allowed were uneconomic, regard being had to the potential carriage capacity of the buses run by the ptitioner firm, they made an application before the respondent Regional transport Authority for increase of the existing number of trips between jalpaiguri and Siliguri by two up and two down trips and between Jalpaiguri and Haldibari by one up and one down trip. On that application, the respondent Regional Transport Authority passed the following resolutions, on April 8, 1965 : "24 (b ). . . . . Considered Agenda no. 24 (b) regarding the application of Secy., Jalpaiguri-Siliguri Bus syndicate for making extra trips on Jalpaiguri to Siliguri and jalpaiguri to Haldibari and vice versa. On that application, the respondent Regional Transport Authority passed the following resolutions, on April 8, 1965 : "24 (b ). . . . . Considered Agenda no. 24 (b) regarding the application of Secy., Jalpaiguri-Siliguri Bus syndicate for making extra trips on Jalpaiguri to Siliguri and jalpaiguri to Haldibari and vice versa. It was resolved that extra trips 2 up and 2 down on Jalpaiguri-Siliguri route and one up and one down on Jalpaiguri-Haldibari route in addition to the trips already allowed before, be granted in the interest of travelling public as a temporary measure for a period of 2 months. It was discussed and decided that one additional service may meet the present need of the flow of passengers on the route and it was resolved that applications be invited from the intending persons for a route permit on Jalpaiguri to siliguri (up to the border of the district) and Secy., R. T. A. be authorised to take action u s. 57 of the M. V. Act short of granting this route permit. " The petitioner firm felt aggrieved. by that part of the resolution by which it was decided to put an additional bus on the nationalised route or a part thereof, to be operated by a private operator and moved this Court for relief. According to the petitioner firm, the action taken by the respondent, regional Transport Authority, in inviting applications for another stage carriage permit on the nationalised route, was beyond the jurisdiction of the regional Transport Authority. They therefore, prayed that the impugned resolution be quashed by a Writ of certiorari and the respondent Regional transport Authority be restrained from giving effect thereto. 4. MR. Sushil Kumar Biswas, learned Advocate for the petitioner firm, made a single pronged attack against the resolution. According to him, after the publication of the scheme, it was the duty of the Regional Transport authority to exclude all non-excepted private operatros from the notified and nationalised route and in trying to introduce one such on the route, the regional Transport Authority acted contrary to the provisions of sections 68b to 68f of the Act, and also acted in excess of the jurisdiction conferred upon the Authority by the Act. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme court in the case of (1) Nilkanth prasad v. State of Bihar, A. I. R. 1962 S. C. 1135 in which Hidayatullah, J., observed as follows : "in Abdul Gafoor v. State of mysore, A. I. R, 1961 S. C. 1556, the effect of notifying a scheme was considered by this Court, and it was there stated that when a scheme has been notified under chapter IVA of the Motor Vehicles Act, and an application is made for the grant of a permit on a route notified under the scheme by a private operator, the Regional Transport authority has no option but to refuse the permit to the private operator, if the State Transport undertaking has either applied for a permit or has already been granted one. In all the present cases, the state Transport Undertaking had already been granted a permit over route "a-B", and if the private operators, that is to say, the appellants, were not entitled in law, to the renewal of their permits for routes which embraced also route "a-B", then the Regional Transport authority could not but refuse to renew the permits. It was observed in Abdul Gaffoor's case, (supra)that the duty of the Regional transport Authority was merely mechanical, and that it was required to take note of routes which had been notified and to adapt its orders so as to be in conformity with the notified scheme. In view of the fact, therefore, that the scheme had been notified and route "a-B" had already been granted to the Rajya transport and/or the State transport Undertaking, the Regional transport Authority was incompetent to renew a permit over a route embracing route "a-B". The regional Transport Authority not having done its duty under the law, the appeal Board was entitled, when the record was before it, to revise the order of the Regional transport Authority, even if the appeal was incompetent, in view of the vest powers of revision under section 64a. " In my opinion, there is a good deal of substance in the argument of Mr. Biswas. Mr. S. C. Bose, learned advocate for the respondent No. 2-the State transport Undertaking, also supported the stand taken by Mr. Biswas. Mr. Bankim Chandra Dutta, learned Additional Government pleader, took strong execution to the attitude exhibited by Mr. " In my opinion, there is a good deal of substance in the argument of Mr. Biswas. Mr. S. C. Bose, learned advocate for the respondent No. 2-the State transport Undertaking, also supported the stand taken by Mr. Biswas. Mr. Bankim Chandra Dutta, learned Additional Government pleader, took strong execution to the attitude exhibited by Mr. Bose, learned advocate appearing for the State transport Undertakings, in lending support to the cause of the petitioner. He argued that if the respondent No. 2 felt aggrieved by the resolution, it might have itself moved against the order. Not having done so, it must be deemed to have acquiesced in the order and must not now be allowed to lend its support to the cause of the petitioner firm. This is a strange argument. If the respondent No 2 elects to support the case of the petitioner firm, under the feeling that it has a community of interest with the petitioner firm, there is no power in a court of law to prevent it from so doing. 5. MR. Dutta next contended that the petitioner firm had no gievance at all against the impugned resolution because there was no interference made with their rights to ply their buses. Even more, the number of their trips were increased. They should not, according to Mr. Dutta, be permited to make an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, praying for the quashing of the impugned resolution. This argument again is unworthy of acceptance. The addition of one more private stage carriage on the route means more competition, which may have an adverse effect on the business of the petitioner firm. If such addition be not justified by law, the petitioner firm have certainly the right to resist, by legal process, the unlawful imposition of a bus, on a route or a part of a route through which they operate their own buses. I do not think that the impugned resolution does not give any cause of action to the petitioner firm and I hold that the petitioners have locus standi to move this court for relief. 6. MR. Dutta also argued that the publication of a scheme under section 68d of the Act did not in any way delimit the rights of the Regional transport Authority under Chapter IV of the act. 6. MR. Dutta also argued that the publication of a scheme under section 68d of the Act did not in any way delimit the rights of the Regional transport Authority under Chapter IV of the act. He further contended that if the regional Transport Authority execised its powers under Chapter IV of the Act, with the object of easing the transportation problem in a particular region, a court of law should not interfere with the exercise of that power. In this context Mr. Dulta strongly relied upon the following extract from paragraph 7 of the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed by the Chairman of the regional Transport Authority. "the pressure of the travelling public on the buses was so heavy that on the application of the petitioner 4 up and 4 down extra trips from siliguri to Jalpaiguri and back was sanctioned by the respondent No. 1 in audition to normal 5 up and 5 down trips in the interest of the travelling public. Apart from the temporary increase of trips as stated above, the respondent No. 1 in the interest of travelling public and in accordance with the provisions of the section 47 of the M. V. Act, 1939, decided at their meeting held on 8. 4. 65 to grant another route permit on Jalpaiguri-Siliguri route and invited applications as provided in section 57 of the M. V. Act. The grant, of such additional route permit was necessary because there was continuous flow of passengers from Jalpaiguri to siliguri and back at all times of the year and it was expected that, the flow of passengers would increase further after the opening of Teesta road bridge when 5 buses of the petitioner with even 9 down and 9 up trips would be wholly inadequate to cope with the volume of increase of passengers between jalpairguri and Siliguri which two are very important centres of business in the North Eastern part of India. Save what are matters of record the allegations in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the petitioner are not admitted. In view of the pressure of public demand the r. T. A. sanctioned extra trips for petitioner's buses and also decided on grant of an additional permit on the route at their meeting held on 8. 4. 65, and the decision of the respondent No. 1 was communicated to the petitioner by office letter No. 2099/mv dated 25. 5. 65. In view of the pressure of public demand the r. T. A. sanctioned extra trips for petitioner's buses and also decided on grant of an additional permit on the route at their meeting held on 8. 4. 65, and the decision of the respondent No. 1 was communicated to the petitioner by office letter No. 2099/mv dated 25. 5. 65. The petitioner itself took advantage of extra trip for the increased number of passengers and admits the possibility of a further increase in the number of trips of its buses owing to increase in the flow of passengers. The petitioner therefore cannot object to the grant of an additional route permit by the respondent No. 1 in accordance with law. " This argument overlooks the overriding effect of the provision of chapter IVA, as indicated in Section 68b and as laid down in the case of nilkanth Prasad (supra). I cannot, therefore, uphold this branch of the argument Mr. Dutta lastly contended that the route over which the additional bus is to operate is a separate route comprising as it does a part of the notified and nationalised route and a new sector between Jalpaiguri and Haldibari. In my opinion, there is no substance in this argument as well. The sector of no route between Jalpaiguri and haldibari may be a new route. The Regional transport Authority may have all its powers under Chapter IV to permit buses to ply on a new route not covered by a scheme under Chapter IVA, but that notwithstanding, a Regional transport Authority cannot include a part of the nationalised route, within a new route selected by it for bus service by private operators. In the case of nilkanth Prasad, (supra), the Supreme court adverted this aspect of the matter in the following language: "the ruling of the Judicial committee cannot be made applicable to the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly Chapter IVA, where the intention is to exclude private operators completely from running over certain sectors or routes vested in State Transport undertakings. In our opinion, therefore, the appellants were rightly held to be disentitled to run over those portions of their routes which were notified as part of the scheme. In our opinion, therefore, the appellants were rightly held to be disentitled to run over those portions of their routes which were notified as part of the scheme. Those portions cannot be said to be different routes, but must be regarded as portions of the routes of the private operators, from which the private operators stood excluded under Section 68f (2) (c) (iii) of the Act. " 7. THE last argument advanced by Mr. Dutta must, therefore, fail. 8. IN my opinion, it was beyond the competence of the Regional transport Authority to have included a part of the nationalised route in the route on which it intended to put additional buses. It has every right to put a bus on Jalpaiguri-Haldibari route, which may not coincide with the nationalised route, but it must not be permitted to include a part of the nationalised route therein. The grievances made on behalf of the petitioners must therefore be unheld. In the result, I make this Rule absolute and quash the part of the resolution by which it was resolved to invite applications for additional buses on the disputed route and restrain the respondents from giving effect thereto. This is, however, without prejudice to the rights of the respondent No. 1 to put as many buses as it may like on the route between Jalpaiguri and haldibari not coinciding with the nationalised route. 9. REGARD being had to the mistake committed by the respondent No. 1 and regard being had to the vigour with which the mistake was sought to be supported before this Court, I make an order for costs against the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 must pay costs to the petitioners, which I assess at five gold mohurs.