Mohd. Zahir and Another vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—From the submissions made on behalf of the learned Counsel for the Appellants, it does not appear that the Appellants are seriously assailing the judgment and order under appeal. After having had read the judgment under appeal, the learned Counsel only submitted that the notice was published on 29th October, 2006 in the daily newspaper ''Amar Ujala'' of Nainital edition and the Appellants are resident of Pilibhit in Uttar Pradesh and, accordingly, there was no sufficient notice to the Appellants. The learned Counsel, however, has not been able to bring to our notice that, in law, the Appellants were entitled to a notice.

The learned Counsel did not dispute the findings of the learned Single Judge pertaining to Rules 56 and 58 of the applicable Rules. Therefore, the conclusion would be that the Appellants did not have, in law, any right to be heard before decision was taken on the application of the Appellants. Even assuming that they had such right, law did not make it obligatory to notify each applicant separately. In any event, by a letter dated 28th April, 2006, the Appellants were informed that their application over the route in question is going to be considered. Furthermore, the route in question is situated on that part of Uttarakhand, where the newspaper ''Amar Ujala'' of Nainital edition is circulated. When the Appellants wanted to obtain route permit to ply bus situated on a particular part of the State, it was incumbent upon the Appellants to be vigilant as regards publications made in relation thereto in the newspapers normally circulated in that part of the State.

We, accordingly, conclude the matter and, finding no scope of interference, refuse to interfere. The appeal is dismissed.