The Prem Bus Service (Private) Limited v. The Regional Transport Authority And Another ., Punjab & Haryana High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Civil Writ No. 1525 of 1967

Advocates

J.S. Wasu
Senior Advocate (Haldev Kapur with him)
G.R. Majithia for Advocate General (Pb.)
H.L. Sibal
for Respondent No. 2

Judges

R.S Narula, J.

Acts

section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (4 of 1939) (hereinafter called the Act,
Section 46 Public carrier permits Section 54.
Section 48 corresponds to section 56
provisions of section 62 itself.8.
Section 47 Section 55 (1)

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion arises from a writ petition by Prem Bus Service (Private) Limited, Barnala (petitioner) challenging a Resolution of the Regional Transport Authority (RTA), Patiala dated 23 June 1967 (Annexure 'A'). The impugned Resolution authorised two temporary permits (each with two return trips) in favour of Messrs Mansahia Transport Company (Private) Limited, Mansa (respondent No. 2) for the Bhikhi–Sangrur via Dhanaula route and directed that the State Transport Authority be approached for opening the route.

The petitioner alleged: (1) statutory rights under Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 were violated because it already operated stage carriage services overlapping the proposed route; (2) principles of natural justice under Article 14 required an opportunity to be heard; and (3) the grant was mala fide and clandestine because it was recommended by Shri Bhan Singh Bhaura, a non-official member of the RTA, who then participated in the decision. The petition additionally raised a contention that the permits were not shown to be for a "particular temporary need."

Procedurally, a fact of significance was that the respondent's application for the temporary permits was not on the meeting agenda for 23 June 1967: it was taken up under item No. 53 — "Consider any other item, any member might like to discuss." The writ petition ultimately resulted in the Court allowing the petition, awarding costs, and setting aside the impugned Resolution.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Regional Transport Authority, in granting temporary stage-carriage permits under Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, was bound to follow the statutory requirements of Section 47 (including taking into consideration representations from persons already providing passenger transport services on or near the proposed route) and to give notice to such persons.
Whether the procedural absence of the application from the meeting agenda and the failure to give notice to affected operators violated principles of natural justice protected by Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether a member of the RTA who recommended a particular application (a non-official member) was disqualified from participating in the decision on that application, and whether participation by such a member rendered the decision mala fide or vitiated by bias.
Whether the temporary permits were invalid because the impugned order did not show that the need was a "particular temporary need" (as argued by the petitioner relying on observations in Patiala Bus Service (P) Ltd. v. Regional Transport Authority).
Whether the writ petition was rendered infructuous by the short remaining life of the impugned temporary permits.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

The RTA sanctioned the temporary permits in violation of the petitioner's statutory rights under Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 because the petitioner already operated stage carriage services on routes overlapped by the proposed route and was thereby entitled to have its representations considered.
Even if no statutory right were available, Article 14 and the principles of natural justice required that the petitioner be given an opportunity to be heard because its vital interests were affected.
The grant was mala fide and clandestine, influenced by the recommendation of Shri Bhan Singh Bhaura (a non-official RTA member), and the manner and haste of passing the Resolution supported the allegation of mala fides.
The impugned order did not demonstrate that the need for permits was a “particular temporary need,” and therefore the permits were invalid as temporary permits cannot be used to meet regular or permanent needs (reliance placed on observations in Patiala Bus Service (P) Ltd. v. RTA).

State / Respondent Arguments

Mr. G.R. Majithia (for the State) submitted that the observations relied upon by the petitioner from Tek Chand, J. in Patiala Bus Service (P) Ltd. were not consistent with certain pronouncements of the Supreme Court.
Mr. Gopal Singh, Advocate General for the State of Punjab, raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition should be dismissed as infructuous because only five days remained in the life of the impugned temporary permits.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Ambala Ex-Serviceman Transport Co-operative Society, Ltd., Ambala City v. The State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1959 Punj. 1 (Full Bench)	Held that Sections 55 and 56 (public carrier provisions) apply equally to permits granted temporarily under Section 62; Section 62 only excludes the procedure in Section 57, not the substantive considerations in Sections 55/56.	The Court relied on this Full Bench decision to conclude that the statutory matters and limitations in the sections corresponding to stage carriage permits (Sections 46–48 and specifically Section 47) apply equally to temporary stage-carriage permits under Section 62.
Kotah Transport Ltd. v. Regional Transport Authority, A.I.R. 1954 Raj. 33 (Division Bench)	Held that provisions analogous to Sections 45–48 apply to temporary permits; grant of temporary permits is a quasi-judicial function and must follow statutory procedure; irregularity can attract writ of certiorari.	The Court cited this decision to support that the RTA's function in granting temporary stage-carriage permits is quasi-judicial and must be carried out in accordance with statutory procedures and norms of lawfulness.
Abdul Gafoor v. State of Rajasthan, A.I.R. 1962 Raj. 174 (Division Bench)	Recognised that by grant of permits operators acquire a proprietary-like interest in a route and when that right is threatened, fairness and natural justice require an opportunity to be heard.	The Court preferred to follow this authority as persuasive support for the proposition that affected operators must be given notice and an opportunity to make representations before temporary permits affecting their interests are granted.
Patiala Bus Service (P) Ltd. v. Regional Transport Authority, Patiala, C.W. 1418 of 1967 (observations by Tek Chand, J.)	Made observations concerning whether a "particular temporary need" was shown for issuing temporary permits.	The petitioner relied on these observations. The Court observed that Mr. G.R. Majithia contested their consistency with Supreme Court pronouncements and, because the Court decided the case on other primary grounds (failure to follow Section 47 and natural justice, and bias), it did not find it necessary to deal with that fourth argument in detail.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's analysis proceeded by statutory interpretation and application of precedent to the facts before it:

Statutory framework: The Court set out Section 62 (power to grant temporary permits for four contingencies) and noted that Sections 46–48 (stage carriage permits) correspond to Sections 54–56 (public carrier permits). It explained that Section 62 merely excludes the procedural requirement of Section 57 for temporary permits but does not exclude the substantive considerations enumerated in the corresponding sections.
Precedent application: The Court relied on the Full Bench decision in Ambala Ex-Serviceman Transport Co-operative Society (A.I.R. 1959 Punj. 1) which held that Sections 55 and 56 apply to temporary public carrier permits under Section 62. By parity, the Court held Sections 46 and 47 (stage carriage provisions) likewise apply to temporary stage-carriage permits under Section 62.
Duty to consider representations and give notice: Because Section 47 requires a Regional Transport Authority to take into consideration representations made by persons already providing passenger transport facilities along or near the proposed route, the Court concluded that the only practical way to enable such interested persons to make representations is by issuing them notice of the intended grant. The RTA failed to give such notice in this case.
Supporting authorities: The Court cited Kotah Transport Ltd. v. RTA (A.I.R. 1954 Raj. 33) to emphasise that the function under Section 62 is quasi-judicial and must be exercised in accordance with statutory procedure; and Abdul Gafoor v. State of Rajasthan (A.I.R. 1962 Raj. 174) to support the view that operators acquire a quasi-proprietary interest in routes and must be heard when that interest is affected.
Bias and disqualification: The impugned order itself stated that respondent No. 2's application was "considered on the recommendation of Shri Bhan Singh Bhaura, non-official member of the Authority." The Court held that a member who recommends a particular application shows interest and thereby disqualifies himself from participating in deliberations. The same member not only recommended but participated in passing the Resolution, which vitiated the proceedings by reason of bias.
Procedural improprieties and haste: The Court observed the proceedings were conducted with haste, that "no enquiry etc. had been made," and that the RTA reversed usual practice by first sanctioning permits and then directing that the State Transport Authority be approached to open the route. The RTA's failure even to list the item on the agenda reinforced the conclusion that the proceedings were not quasi-judicial in form and substance.
Response to preliminary objection: The Court rejected the Advocate General's contention that the writ was infructuous because only five days remained of the permits' life, holding that the short remaining period did not prevent interference with an order found to be illegal and mala fide.

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The writ petition was allowed. The impugned Resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, Patiala dated 23 June 1967 was set aside. Costs were awarded to the petitioner.

Implications and consequences:

The immediate and direct effect is that the specific Resolution granting two temporary permits to Messrs Mansahia Transport Company (Private) Ltd. was quashed and the petitioner's challenge succeeded with costs awarded in its favour.
The Court applied and reaffirmed existing principles (as stated in the cited authorities) that temporary permits under Section 62 are subject to the substantive considerations in the corresponding sections for permanent permits (Sections 46–48 for stage carriages), including the duty to consider representations under Section 47 and the requirement of quasi-judicial propriety (no participation by interested members, notice to affected operators, adequate enquiry and formality in proceedings).
The opinion does not purport to lay down a novel rule of law; it applies established authorities to the facts and sets aside the impugned administrative action for failure to comply with statutory requirements and norms of natural justice.

Petition allowed. (As stated in the opinion.)

Show full summary ...

The Prem Bus Service (Private) Limited v. The Regional Transport Authority And Another .

R.S Narula, J.:— Resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, Patiala dated June 23, 1967 (Annaxure ‘A’, whereby it was decided to grant two temporary permits with two return trips in favour of Messrs Mansahia Transport Company (Private) Limited, Mansa (respondent No. 2) for Bhikhi Sangrur via Dhanaula route and whereby it was further decided that the State Transport Authority be approached for opening the said route has been impugned in this case by the Prem Bus Service (Private) Limited, Barnala, on the following grounds:—

(1) The permits in dispute were directed to be sanctioned in violation of the statutory rights of the petitioner under section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (4 of 1939) (hereinafter called ‘the Act, inasmuch as it had been made impossible by the first respondent authority to take into consideration any representation, which the petitioner might have made against the application of respondent No. 2 for the grant of the permits in dispute, as the petitioner admittedly held and was operating stage carriage service on Bhikhi-Barnala, Barnala-Sangrur and Barnala-Dhuri routes, all of which were over lapped by the route in dispute;

(2) Even if no such statutory right as has been claimed by the petitioner is available to him, the gap in the requirement is filled up by Article 14 of the Constitution, whereunder the principles of natural justice require that the petitioner whose interest was going to be vitally affected by the impugned grant, should have been given an opportunity of being heard before the disputed permits could be sanctioned to his prejudice; and

(3) In any case the impugned grant is mala fide and has been made in a clandestine manner at the instance of and because of the recommendation of Shri Bhan Singh Bhaura, M.L.A who was and non-official member of the Regional Transport Authority. The manner in which and the haste with which the Resolution in favour of the respondent No. 2 was passed by respondent No. 1 are relied upon in this respect.

2. The only other contention raised by Mr. Joginder Singh Wasu learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order does not show that the need for the grant of the permits was a “Particular temporary need.” According to learned counsel no temporary permits could be issued if the need was of a regular or a permanent nature. Counsel has relied in support of this proposition on certain observations made by Tek Chand, J. on 4th October, 1967 in Patiala Bus Service (P) Ltd. v. Regional Transport Authority, Patiala . C.W 1418 of 1967.. Mr. G.R Majithia, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the above said relevant observations of Tek Chand, J. are not consistent with certain pronouncements of the Supreme Court. In the view I have decided to take of the first three arguments canvassed by Mr. Wasu, I do not think it necessary to deal with the fourth one.

3. Only one factual matter remains to be noticed before the legal arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner Company are dealt with. This relates to the admitted fact that the consideration of the application of respondent No. 2 for the grant of two temporary permits in question was not mentioned in the Agenda of the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority fixed for June 23, 1967. The matter was dealt with under item No. 53, which was in the following terms:—

“Consider any other item, any member might like to discuss.”

“Transport vehicle” has been defined in clause (33) of Section 2 of the Act, to mean “a public service vehicle or a goods vehicle.” The expression, therefore, relates both to the stage carriages as well as to public carriers. Section 62 of the Act authorises the Regional Transport Authority to grant temporary permits to be effective for a limited period not exceeding four months, to authorise the use of a transport vehicle, in any of the four contingencies mentioned below:—

(a) for the conveyance of passengers on special occasions such as to and from fairs and religious gatherings, or

(b) for the purposes of a seasonal business, or

(d) pending decision on an application for the renewal of a permit.

Two exceptions to the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority in the above respect have been carved out in the two provisos, with which we are not concerned in the instant case. The argument of Mr. Joginder Singh Wasu is that the only relevent provision of the Act, of which operation has been excluded in the matter of grant of temporary permits as compared with regular permits is Section 57 of the Act. Consequently, it is argued that sections 46 and 47 of the Act have to be followed by a Regional Transport Authority even in the matter of grant of temporary permits under Section 62 of the Act. Corresponding provisions relating to the grant of stage carriage permits and public carrier permits in the Act may be noticed at this stage:

Stage carriage permits Section 46 Public carrier permits Section 54. An application for a permit in respect of a service of stage carriages or to use a particular motor vehicle as a stage carriage (in this Chapter referred to as a stage carriage permit) shall, as far as may be, contain the following particulars, namely:— An application for a permit to use one or more motor vehicles for the carriage of goods for hire or reward (in this Chapter referred to as a public carrier's permit) shall, as far as may be, contain the following particulars, namely:— (a) the route or routes or the area or areas to which the application relates; (a) the area or the route or routes to which the application relates; (b) the number of vehicles it is proposed to operate in relation to each route or area and the type and seating capacity of each such vehicle; (b) the number of vehicles it is proposed to operate in relation to each area or route and the type and capacity of each such vehicle;

(c) the minimum and maximum number of daily services proposed to be provided in relation to each route or area and the time table of the normal services; (c) the nature of the goods it is proposed to carry; (d) the number of vehicles intended to be kept in reserve to maintain the service and to provide for special occasions; (d) the manner in which it is claimed that a public need will be Served by the vehicle; (e) the arrangements intended to be made for the housing and repair of the vehicles, for the comfort and convince of passengers and for the storage and safe custody of luggage; (e) the arrangements intended to be made for the housing of the vehicles and for the storage and safe custody of the goods to be carried; (f) such other matters as may be prescribed. (f) particulars as to whether the applicant is a co-operative society registered or deemed to have been registered under any enactment in force for the time being, or is an individual owner (g) such particulars as the Regional Transport Authority may require with respect to any business as a carrier of goods for hire or reward carried on by the applicant at any time before the making of the applicant; and of the rates charged by the applicant; (h) particulars of any agreement or arrangement, affecting in any material respect the provision within the region of the Regional Transport Authority of facilities for the transport of goods for hire or reward, entered into by the applicant with any other person by whom such facilities are provided, whether within or without the region; (i) any other particulars which may be prescribed. Section 47 Section 55 (1) A regional-Transport Authority shall, in considering an application for a stage carriage permit, have regard to the following matters namely:— (1) A Regional Transport Authority shall, in considering an application for a public carrier's permit have regard to the following matters namely:— (a) the interests of the public of generally; (a) the interests of the public generally; b) the advantage to the public of the service to be providing, including the saving of time likely to be effected thereby and any convenience arising from journeys not being broken: (b) the advantages to the public of the service to be provided and the convenience afforded to the public by the provision of such service and the saving of time likely to be effected thereby:

(c) the adequacy of other passenger transport services operating or likely to operate in the near future, whether by road or other means, between the places to be served; (c) the adequacy of other goods services operating or likely to operate in the near future, whether by road or other means, between the places to be served; (d) the benefit to any particular locality or localities likely to be afforded by the service; (d) the operation by the applicant of other transport services, including those in respect of which applications from him for permits are pending; (e) the operation by the applicant of other transport service, including those in respect of which applications from him for permits are pending; (e) the benefit to any particular locality or localities to be afforded by the service; (f) the condition of the roads included in the proposed route or area; (f) the condition of the roads included in the proposed area or route; (g) the nature of the goods to be earned with special reference to any of a fragile or perishable nature; (h) the volume of traffic and the existence of marketing centres in the proposed area or along or near the proposed route; and shall also take into consideration any representations made by persons already providing passenger transport facilities by any means along or near the proposed route or area, or by any association representing persons interested in the provision of road transport facilities recognised in this behalf by the State Government, or by any local authority or police authority within whose jurisdiction any part of the proposed route or area lies: and shall also take into consideration any representations made by persons already providing goods transport facilities by any means, whether by road or otherwise, in the proposed area or along or near the proposed route, or by any local authority or police authority within whose jurisdiction any part of the proposed area or route lies; Provided that other conditions being equal, an application for a stage carriage permit from a co-operative society registered or deemed to have been registered under any enactment in force for the time being shall, as far as may be, be given preference over applications from individual owners. Provided that other conditions being equal, an application for a public carrier's permit from a co-operative society registered or deemed to have been registered under any enactment in force for the time being shall, as far as may be given preference over applications from individual owners.

(2) A Regional Transport Authority shall refuse to grant a state carriage permit if it appears from any time table furnished that the provisions of this Act relating to the speed at which vehicles may be driven are likely to be contravened: (2) A Regional Transport Authority may, having regard to the matters mentioned in sub-section (1), limit the number of transport vehicles generally or of any specified type for which public carrier's permits may be granted in the rigion or in any specified area or on any specified route within the region. Provided that before such refusal an opportunity shall be given to the applicant to amend the time-table so as to conform to the said provisions. (3) A Regional Transport Authority may, having regard to the matters mentioned in sub-section (1), limit the number of stage carriages generally or of any specified type for which stage carriages permits may be granted in the region or in any specified area or on any specified route within the region.

4. Similarly Section 48 corresponds to section 56 of the Act.

5. As stated above, Section 62 authorises the grant of temporary permits both for public carriers as well as for stage carriages. The argument about the section 62 being unconstitutional as conferring uncontrolled powers on a Transport Authority to grant temporary public carrier's permits on its whim in an arbitrary manner under section 62 of the Act was repelled by a Full Bench of this Court in The Ambala Ex-Serviceman Transport Co-operative Society, Ltd., Ambala City v. The State Punjab . A.I.R 1959 Punj. 1., on the ground that the power of issuing temporary permits is controlled by the provisions of sections 55 and 56 of the Act and the legislature has in the aforesaid provisions indicated the basis for the exercise, of the same. Their Lordship of the Full Bench held that sections 55 and 56 are applicable to public carriers permits which may be granted on permanent basis as well as for a limited period-under section 62 and that all that section 62 provides is that the procedure laid down in section 57 shall not apply to the permits granted for a temporary period, and the applicability of sections 55 and 56 is not excluded by section 62. It was emphasised by this Court that the matters which have to be taken into consideration while granting the public carrier's permits either permanently or temporarily and the limitations which have to be placed on them are provided for in the aforesaid two sections 55 and 56 and it cannot, therefore, be held that the power given to the Regional Transport Authority for issuing permits under section 62 is an uncontrolled or unrestricted one.

6. There is hardly any material difference between the relevant language of sections 54 and 55 relating to the grant of public carrier's permits on the one hand and sections 46 and 47 relating to the grant of stage carriage permits on the other. What has been stated by the Full Bench relating to the former category, therefore, fully applies to the latter. I have no hesitation in holding that the requirements of section 47 of the Act have to be followed in the grant of temporary stage carriage permits under Section 62 of the Act, in the same manner and to the same extent, as is required in the grant of regular stage carriage permits. In view of the law laid down by the Full Bench, there is no escape from this proposition. It necessarily follows that a statutory duty is cast on the Regional Transport Authority, to take into consideration any representation made by the persons already providing passenger transport facilities by any means along or near the proposed route. The only way in which it can be made possible for such interested persons to make representations and to press them before the meeting of the authority, if any, is to give them a notice of the proposed grant of temporary permits not only was this not done in the instant case but the proposed grant did not find place even in the agenda of the meeting in which the impugned order was ultimately passed.

7. In a case relating to the grant of stage carriage permits on a temporary basis, it was held by a Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in Kotah Transport Ltd. v. Regional Transport Authority . A.I.R 1954 Raj. 33., that the provisions of sections 45 to 48 would apply also to the cases of the issue of temporary permits unless the context otherwise requires. Their Lordships of the Rajasthan High Court held that the function under section 62 is a quasi judicial one and it has got to be performed in accordance with the provisions of the procedure laid down in the Act itself and if an authority which is to act judicially or quasi judicially acts illegally or with material irregularity, a writ of certiorari would lie. In the Rajasthan case the grant of temporary permits was quashed as the Regional Transport Authority was found to have acted in total disregard of the provisions of section 62 itself.

8. After a careful consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion, that it is incumbent upon a Regional Transport Authority to give notice of the intended grant of a temporary permit to all those who are likely to be affected by the intended grant and who are entitled to make a representation referred to in section 47 of the Act, before sanctioning temporary permits under section 62 of the Act. If it could be argued that such a requirement cannot be spelt out of any statutory provision of the Act I would prefer to follow the law laid down by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in Abdul Gafoor v. State of Rajasthan . A.I.R 1962 Raj. 174. wherein it was held that by virtue of grant of permits to certain operators to ply their buses upon certain routes they acquire a kind of proprietary right in the transport business on the route and when that right is sought to be interfered with because other operators are intended to be inducted on that route, it is only fair and in consonance with the principles of natural justice that the persons who are likely to be affected must be given an opportunity of being heard in the matter. The impugned order having been passed without any notice having been issued to the petitioner whose interest in the new route has not been and cannot be indeed questioned, cannot, therefore, be sustained and must be set aside on that short ground.

9. I feel still more strongly on the third point raised by Mr. Yoginder Singh Wasu. The impugned order itself mentions that the application of respondent No. 2 for the impugned grant was being “considered on the recommendation of Shri Bhan Singh Bhaura, non-official member of the Authority”. The member of the Regional Transport Authority, who had decided to recommend a particular application, had in my opinion, disqualified himself from participating in the deliberations relating to the item before the Regional Transport Authority. The impugned order, however, shows that he not only recommended the application of respondent No. 2, but actively participated in the passing of the Resolution. It is settled law that the proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority in the matter of grant of permits are quasi judicial. It is the function of such Tribunals not only to act in a just and legal manner but also to adopt such a procedure from which it patently appears that justice is being done and that no member has any personal interest in any particular party or item. It can safely be said that a member who is recommending a particular application is necessarily showing his own interest in the grant thereof. It any principle of natural justice is well settled, it is this that no one should participate as a Judge or as a member of a quasi judicial tribunal who has even the most insignificant and remote interest in the matter before him being decided in a particular way.

10. I also find force in Mr. Wasu's argument that the whole impugned proceedings appear to have been conducted with somewhat indecent haste. The order itself mentions that “no enquiry etc. had been made in this case”. What is still more surprising is that instead of following the usual procedure of a new route being first opened by a State Transport Authority and then permits being issued for the route either on a temporary or a regular basis, the Regional Transport Authority, Patiala adopted a somewhat queer procedure to first sanction permits and then direct that the State Transport Authority may be approached for opening the route. All this does not leave a very pleasant taste in the mouth of the Court. These things taken together with the fact that the Transport Authority did not even take the risk of mentioning this item in the agenda of the meeting has given an idea that the proceedings relating to the impugned Resolution were not conducted in a quasi judicial manner and according to requisite judicial norms. For this additional reason, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

11. In fairness to Mr. Gopal Singh, Advocate General for the State of Punjab, I have to notice an objection of preliminary nature which has been passed by him in this case. It was urged that the writ petition should be dismissed on the short ground that it had become infructuous by merely five days having been left in the remaining life of the impugned permits. I do not think this to be a valid ground for refusing to interefere with an order which I have otherwise found to be wholly illegal and almost mala-fide.

12. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is allowed with costs and the impugned Resolution of the Regional Transport Authority is set aside.

Petition allowed.

The Prem Bus Service (Private) Limited v. The Regional Transport Authority And Another .

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

State / Respondent Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

The Prem Bus Service (Private) Limited v. The Regional Transport Authority And Another .

Comments