Permit notice disclosure, late procedural objections, and acquiescence barred writ relief against transport proceedings.

Publication of a permit application satisfied the statutory disclosure requirement where the substance of the route was disclosed and no prejudice was shown; omission of some intermediate route points did not invalidate the notice. A challenge based on alleged non-compliance with the counter-signature procedure was not entertained in writ proceedings because it had not been raised before the transport authorities. A party who knew of an alleged defect in the Regional Transport Authority's composition but participated without objection was held to have acquiesced, and certiorari could be refused on implied waiver. The writ petition therefore failed on all substantive grounds.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the publication of the permit application satisfied Section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 notwithstanding omission of some intermediate route points; (ii) Whether the challenge based on non-compliance with the counter-signature procedure under Section 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 could be raised for the first time in writ proceedings; (iii) Whether the petitioner could question the validity of the Regional Transport Authority's constitution under Section 44(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 after participating in the proceedings without objection.

Issue (i): Whether the publication of the permit application satisfied Section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 notwithstanding omission of some intermediate route points.

Analysis: The publication disclosed the substance of the application and identified the route for which the permit was sought. Omission of certain intermediate places did not, on the facts, show that the substance of the application had not been published. The petitioner was aware of the route, suffered no prejudice, and could have inspected the application at the authority's office.

Conclusion: The challenge under Section 57(3) failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the challenge based on non-compliance with the counter-signature procedure under Section 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 could be raised for the first time in writ proceedings.

Analysis: The objection regarding alleged non-compliance with the procedure under Section 63(3) had not been urged before the transport authorities. The permit was not a case of absence of counter-signature, and the writ court declined to entertain a new factual and procedural objection raised at a late stage.

Conclusion: The challenge under Section 63 also failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the petitioner could question the validity of the Regional Transport Authority's constitution under Section 44(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 after participating in the proceedings without objection.

Analysis: Even assuming a defect in the authority's composition, the petitioner knew of the alleged defect yet chose not to object and instead participated in the proceedings taking the chance of success. In such circumstances, the discretionary remedy of certiorari could be refused on the ground of acquiescence and implied waiver.

Conclusion: The petitioner was precluded from raising the objection under Section 44(2).

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed on all substantive grounds and the impugned permit proceedings were not disturbed in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: A party who, with knowledge of an alleged jurisdictional or procedural defect, participates in the statutory proceedings without objection and takes a chance of success is ordinarily disentitled to certiorari on the basis of acquiescence or implied waiver.

---