JUDGMENT
R.K. Verma, J.
1. This is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India directed against the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.
2. The material facts giving rise to this petition, briefly, are as follows:
Respondent No. 2, the Regional Transport Authority, Indore, invited applications for grant of permit under Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), for one daily return trip on the route Meghnagar, Sardarpur via Jhabua, Ranapur, Para, Bavdi, Chhalnimata, Tirla, Rajgarh, Chhadawad and Piparn. The petitioner was one of the applicants. The Regional Transport Authority, after considering the claims of the various applicants, granted permission to the petitioner on the aforesaid route. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, after hearing the petitioner and the objectors, proposed the timings for the new service of the petitioner on the route in question. That time table was provisionally approved by the Regional Transport Authority without hearing the parties. Aggrieved by that order, respondent No. 3 preferred a revision petition under Section 64-A of the Act before the State Transport Appeal ate Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the revision petition and directed that the Regional Transport Authority should itself hear the parties and then proceed to pass an order afresh. The Regional Transport Authority thereafter again fixed the same timings as were proposed by the Secretary earlier by observing that the Tribunal had: not precluded the Regional Transport Authority from assigning the same timings. Respondent No. 3 again preferred a revision petition before the Tribunal, which was allowed and the Tribunal remanded the case to the Regional Transport Authority to consider the question of timings afresh, in the light of the order passed by the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the order of remand passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner has filed this petition.
3. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, we have come to the conclusion that this petition deserves to be dismissed summarily. Though the Tribunal bad earlier remanded the case to the Regional Transport Authority for passing an order afresh fixing the timings in accordance with law, the Regional Transport Authority fixed the same timings as were earlier fixed by the Secretary on the ground that the Tribunal had not precluded the Keg ional Transport Authority from assigning the same timings. In these circumstances, the Tribunal rightly held that the Regional Transport Authority had not fixed timings having regard to the interest of the general in public. The Tribunal noted that there was enough gap between the two existing services, which were being operated on the route and that the timings of the new service should be fixed in between the two existing services, keeping in view the convenience of the traveling public. The Tribunal, therefore, remanded the case to the Regional Transport Authority for deciding the timings afresh, having regard to the public interest. The Tribunal had jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and the learned Counsel for the petitioner was unable to satisfy us that the order passed by the Tribunal was vitiated by any error apparent on the face of the record. It cannot be disputed that timings of bus services have to be fixed having regard to the public interest as rightly held by the Tribunal. No case has been made out for exercising extraordinary powers of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
4 The petition accordingly fails and is summarily dismissed.
