JUDGMENT 1. - On the Karauli-Narainpur Tatwada bus route (hereinafter referred to as 'the route') Laxmichand respondent No. 3 had a non-temporary stage carriage permit, which was valid upto August 19, 1974. Laxmichand submitted an application for renewal of his permit on June 15, 1974 which was late by 54 days, in accordance with the limitation prescribed for filing of such application for renewal of state carriage permits, under the first proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). As the application of Laxmichand was late by more than 15 days, the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the RTA') rejected the said application for renewal of permit as time barred, by its order dated June 24, 1974. Thereafter, the RTA proceeded to notify one vacancy on the route, which was caused on account of the rejection of the application of renewal of the permit of Laxmi Chand, by its notification published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated July 25, 1974 and invited applications within a period of 30 days of the publication of the aforesaid notification in the Rajasthan Gazette. The petitioner was one of the applicants for the grant of a fresh non-temporary stage carriage permit on the route in the aforesaid vacancy and his application was also published in the Rajasthan Gazette under Section 57 (3) of the Act inviting objections in respect thereof, by the notification of the RTA dated August 12, 1974. The petitioner's case is that no one filed any objections or representations within the meaning of Section 57 (4) of the Act in respect of his application for the grant of a permit on the route. By its notification dated August 29, 1974 the RTA notified that the applications for the grant of a fresh stage carriage permit on the route would be considered at the meeting of the Authority to be held on October 21/22, 1974. It appears that the afore said meeting was adjourned to October 29, 1974 and on that date, the matter relating to the grant of stage carriage permit on the route was considered by the RTA and a permit was granted to the petitioner, in the vacancy caused on account of the refusal to renew the permit of the respondent No. 3, Laxmichand. The Secretary, RTA, also issued a permit to the petitioner on the route on November 23, 1974 in pursuance of the aforesaid decision of the RTA dated October 29, 1974. 2. Laxichand respondent No. 3 preferred a revision petition under Section 64A of the Act, against the aforesaid order of the RTA dated October 29, 1974 granting a permit to the petitioner, before the STate Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), which heard the revision petition after notice to the petitioner. Laxmichand submitted before the Tribunal that after the rejection of the application for the renewal of his permit by the RTA on June 24, 1974, he submitted an application for condonation of delay in filing the aforesaid renewal application and that application was also rejected by the RTA by its order dated August 28, 1974 and that thereafter he also submitted an application to the RTA for the grant of fresh permit on the route on September 27, 1974 which was published in the Rajasthan Gazette on December 10, 1974 under Section 57 (3) of the Act, inviting objections in respect thereof within a period of 30 days from the date of the publication of the aforesaid application. Laxmichand, in the aforesaid circumstances, urged before the Tribunal that his application for the grant of a fresh permit should have been considered by the RTA along with the application of the petitioner. This contention found favour with the Tribunal, who by its order dated January 20, 1975 accepted the revision petition filed by Laxmi Chand before it and set aside the resolution of the RTA granting a permit to the petitioner on the route and remanded of the case back to the RTA for a fresh consideration of the application of Laxmichand simultaneously along with that of the petitioner. 3. 3. The aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal on January 20, 1975 is assailed before me on behalf of the petitioner and it has been urged by this learned counsel that the application of Laxmi Chand was not ripe for consideration either on the date when the agenda for the meeting of the RTA which was to be held on October 21/22, 1974 was published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated September, 19, 1974, or even on the date when the meeting of the RTA actually took place on October 29, 1974 and considered the matter relating to the grant of a non-temporary stage carriage permit on the route. Mr. Mahesshwari appearing for Laxmi Chand, respondent No. 3 supported the order passed by the Tribunal and urged in the fist place that the respondent No. 3 could not submit an application for the grant of a fresh permit on the route until the matter relating to the renewal of his earlier permit was finally disposed of by the R.T.A. by its order dated August 28, 1974 and in the second place it was urged by him that as the application of the respondent No. 3 for grant of a fresh stage carriage permit on the route was not sent for publication in time by the R.T.A. the said application could not become ripe for hearing on account of inaction on the part of the office of the R.T.A. and as such the respondent No. 3 could not be made to suffer due to the aforesaid lapse on the part of the concerned officials and that the Tribunal was perfectly right in these circumstances in holding that the application of the respondent No. 3 should have been simultaneously considered along with the application of the petitioner, for grant of a fresh stage carriage permit on the route. 4. So far as the first submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 is concerned, it may be pointed out that there was no prohibition in law against the respondent No. 3, in submitting an application for the grant of fresh permit, during the period he was persuing his remedy before the R.T.A. relating to the renewal of his earlier permit on the route. The renewal application of the respondent No. 3 was rejected by the RTA on June 24, 1974, being delayed by 54 days, and it became undoubtedly apparent thereafter that one vacancy would be created on the route as soon as the permit of Laxmichand would expire on August 19, 1974. The R.T.A. was rightly advised to take appropriate proceedings will within time for filling up the vacancy, which was going to occur on the route on August 20, 1974 so that the travelling public might not suffer on that account. The notification inviting application for filing the aforesaid vacancy was published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated July 25, 1974 and publications were invited within a period of 30 days of the publication of the aforesaid notification in the Rajasthan Gazette. The respondent No. 3 could have easily submitted an application within the prescribed period of 30 days for the grant of a fresh permit on the route and there was no impediment in his way in making such an application merely because he was still persuing his remedies relating to the renewal of his earlier permit on the route, either by filing an application of delay or even by filing an appeal before the Tribunal. The respondent No. 3 was free to submit an application for the grant of a fresh permit, subject tot he final decision of the matter relating to the renewal of his earlier permit on the route. Merely because the respondent No. 3 chose to wait till September, 1974, for filing an application for grant of a fresh permit,he could not be given any beneficial treatment. I am unable to uphold the finding of the Tribunal that the respondent No. 3 could not have submitted a fresh application till the matter relating to the renewal of his earlier permit on the route was finally decided by the R.T.A. or the Tribunal. It is not the case of the respondent No. 3 that any stay order was passed by the Tribunal restraining the R.T.A. from proceeding further in the matter of filing the vacancy caused on account of its refusal to renew the permit of the respondent No. 3. It is not the case of the respondent No. 3 that any stay order was passed by the Tribunal restraining the R.T.A. from proceeding further in the matter of filing the vacancy caused on account of its refusal to renew the permit of the respondent No. 3. In any view of the matter, the respondent No. 3 was not precluded from filing an application for grant of a fresh permit on the route and in case the proceedings relating to the renewal of his earlier permit would have ended successfully in favour of the respondent No. 3 then the R.T.A. would have dropped further proceedings in respect of the grant of a fresh permit on the route, in the vacancy caused on the route, in the vacancy caused on account of the refusal to renew the earlier permit of the respondent no. 3. The first contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 is, therefore, replied. 5. In respect of second submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, it would be sufficient to observe that the said respondent submitted his application for the grant of a fresh permit in the office of the R.T.A. on September 27, 1974 and even if the application would have been sent by the said office for the publication with the utmost speed and would have also been published in the Rajasthan Gazette without any delay whatsoever then also some time, say at least a week, was bound to be spent in sending such application for publication and the publication thereof in the Gazette and even then the application of the respondent No. 3 would not have become ripe for consideration on October 29, 1974 when the matter relating to the grant of a stage carriage permit on the route was actually decided by the R.T.A. as the period of 30 days for inviting objections in respect of such application, as required under Section 57 (3) of the Act, must have elapsed before such application could become ripe for consideration. Thus, in any event, the application of the respondent No. 3 could have not become ripe for consideration on or before October 29, 1974 and in this context any alleged delay in the publication of the respondent no. Thus, in any event, the application of the respondent No. 3 could have not become ripe for consideration on or before October 29, 1974 and in this context any alleged delay in the publication of the respondent no. 3 for grant of a fresh permit on the route, which has been referred to by the Tribunal, was wholly immaterial and was of no consequence. 6. Mr. Maheshwari then urged that a request was made to the R.T.A. to postpone the consideration of the matter relating to the grant of a fresh permit on the route, so that the application of the respondent No. 3 could also become ripe for consideration. It may be pointed out in this connection that it was entirely within the discretion of the R.T.A. The application of the respondent no. 3 had not even been published on the date when the R.T.A. met to consider the applications for the grant of a non-temporary stage carriage permit on the route and in the case the R.T.A., in these circumstances, did not think it proper to postpone the hearing thereof, it cannot be held that the proceedings of the R.T.A. in considering the matter and granting a permit on the route to the petitioner were in any manner vitiated. 7. In Shiv Charan Lal v. Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur, 1968 RLW 461 a learned Judge of this Court held that the Regional Transport authority should dispose of all such pending applications as actually become ripe for hearing by the time it decided to convene a meeting for the consideration of such applications. This view has been upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in Lallu Narain Yadav v. The Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur Region, Jaipur & others, ILR 1970 Raj 16 wherein it was observed that:- "It must also be remembered that the principle of simultaneous consideration has no statutory basis and its validity and even vitality has to be sustained with reference to constitutional requirement of equality before the law and the principle of natural justice and fair play." 8. It was further observed by this Court in the aforesaid case (2):- "......the true principle of simultaneous consideration should appear to be that the R.T.A. should treat all applicants equally and fairly in disposing of their applications and should avoid discrimination in the matter of publication and deposition of the applications. It was further observed by this Court in the aforesaid case (2):- "......the true principle of simultaneous consideration should appear to be that the R.T.A. should treat all applicants equally and fairly in disposing of their applications and should avoid discrimination in the matter of publication and deposition of the applications. To put it more concretely, they emphasise that the R.T.A. should get published all applications pending at the time it decides upon the publications of the applications & should further dispose of all applications which can reasonably be disposed of simultaneously without picking and choosing some only to ensure fair and just disposal." 9. The same view was also upheld by another Division Bench of this Court in Hari Narian Nathani v. Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur & another, AIR 1970 Raj 200 . 10. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it is absolutely clear that the application of the respondent No. 3 for grant of a fresh permit on the route could not have reasonably become ripe for consideration by the time the R.T.A. actually considered the matter relating to the grant of a non-temporary stage carriage permit on the route on October 29, 1974. The Tribunal was therefore, not at all justified in holding that the application of the respondent No. 3 should have been simultaneously considered by the R.T.A. along with the application of the petitioner for grant of a permit on the route. Even if the application of the respondent No.3 would have been sent for publication with the utmost speed and would have also been published in the State Gazette without any loss of time, yet the same could not have reasonably become ripe at the time when the R.T.A. proceeded to consider the applications for grant of a permit on the route, and, in these circumstances, it could not be held that the respondent No. 3 was equally placed as the petitioner or that the principles of equality before law or fair and just disposal of such applications could have required that the application of the respondent No. 3 should have been considered, for the grant of a permit on the route, along with the application of the petitioner, which had become ripe for such consideration long back. It is therefore, not possible to uphold the order passed by the Tribunal in the present case. 11. It is therefore, not possible to uphold the order passed by the Tribunal in the present case. 11. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed and the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan dated January 20, 1975 is set aside and the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur dated October 29, 1974 is restored. The parties are left to bear their own costs. *******