Skip to content


Kewal Chand Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectMotor Vehicles
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 631 and 670 of 1978
Judge
Reported in1979WLN(UC)49
AppellantKewal Chand
RespondentState Transport Appellate Tribunal and ors.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
.....kilo meters with conditions held tribunal committed no error in giving' non-temporary permits on pali ahore route;the rta has been empowered to allow overlapping of the notified area, route orportion not exceeding 10 kilo meters to the private permits holders with the condition hat such permits holders shall not pick up and set down passengers on such overlapped portion and that the rta has allowed the pali. mandli notified portion of the route to be overlapped by private permit holders on the pali gundor route via mandli on condition that they will not pick up and set down passengers in between pali and maodli. similar condition has been imposed by the rta in respect of other permits thus, there is no infirmity in the order of the tribunal, directing the rta to grant non-temporary..........jodhpur to grant non-temporary permits for a period of three years to the said respondents on the pali-ahore route.2. originally the regional transport authority, jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'rta') by its resolution dated october 21-22, 1964, had granted four non-temporary permits on the pali-ahor route out of those four permits, only two persons viz jaisingh and doongarsingh got their permits renewed and in 1968 only two persons were having non-temporary permits on the pali-ahore route. by resolution dated 7th november 1968, the rta increased the scope on the pali-ahore route from 2 permits to 5 permits so as to provide 2 return services daily. it appears that no action was taken on the basis of the said resolution of the rta & no additional permits were issued on the.....
Judgment:

S.C. Agrawal, J.

1. The petitioner, in these two writ petitions is the Holder of as age-carriage, permit for operating his bus on the Pali-Ahore 'route. He has' challenged the order dated 17th August, 1978, passed by the State Transport' Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal has allowed the appeals of Narpatraj (respondent No. 3 in Civil Writ Petition No. 631 of 1978) and Premraj (respondent No,3 in Civil Writ Petition No. 67a of 1978 and has directed the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur to grant non-temporary permits for a period of three years to the said respondents on the Pali-Ahore route.

2. Originally the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'RTA') by its resolution dated October 21-22, 1964, had granted four non-temporary permits on the Pali-Ahor route Out of those four permits, only two persons viz Jaisingh and Doongarsingh got their permits renewed and in 1968 only two persons were having non-temporary permits on the Pali-Ahore route. By resolution dated 7th November 1968, the RTA increased the scope on the Pali-Ahore route from 2 permits to 5 permits so as to provide 2 return services daily. It appears that no action Was taken on the basis of the said resolution of the RTA & no additional permits were issued on the vacancies which were increased as a result of the increase in the scope on the aforesaid route. By resolution dated 9th March, 1976, the RTA, proceeding on the assumption that the scope which had been fixed for the Pali-Ahore route in 68 was only for two permits to provide one: return service daily, decided to increase the scope from two permits to four permits so as to provide two return service daily. A revision petition was filed against the aforesaid resolution of the RTA before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, by its order dated 3Ist July, 1976, quashed the resolution of the RTA dated 9tb March 1976 In the mean while, the RTA had issued a notification dated April 7, .1976, inviting applications for grant of two non-temporary permits on the Pali-Ahore route on the two vacancies which had arisen 'in pursuance of the resolution of the RTA dated 9-3-76 increasing the scope on the route from two permits to four permits. The said notification was published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated May 6, 19 76 and in pursuance of the said notification, the respondents, Narpatraj and Premraj, submitted their applications for grants of non temporary permits on the Pali Ahore route. The said applications were considered by the RTA at its nesting held on 17th January, 1977 and it rejected the said applications on the view that the resolution of the RTA dated 9th March 1976 whereby the scope had been increased from two permits to four permits, had been quashed by the Tribunal on 31st July, 1976 and that in view of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, there was no scope for the grant of any permit on the route. Aggrieved by the aforesaid resolution of the RTA dated 17th January, 1977, respondents Narpatraj and Premraj filed two separate appeals before the Tribunal, which were allowed by the Tribunal by its order dated 17th August, 1978, on the view that the resolution which had been passed by the RTA on 7th November, 1968 where by scope had been increased to five permits with two return services daily had been ignored by the RTA in 1976 while raising the scope and the said, resolution had not been set aside by the Tribunal & it continues to be in force. The Tribunal held that in view of the aforesaid resolution of the R T A dated 7th November, 1968 permits could be granted to the respondents on the two vacancies in respect of which applications had been invited by the RTA The Tribunal, therefore, accepted the appeals of the respondents and directed the RTA to grant non-temporary permits to the respondents on the Pali Ahore route for a period of three years in the existing vacancies in the scope of 5:2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, dated 17th August, 1978, the petitioner has filed these writ petitions.

3. The first contention urged by Shri B L. Miheshwari, the learned Counsel for the petitioner in these writ petitions, is that the resolution dated 7th Nov, 1968, passed by the RTA whereby the scope had been increased to 5 permits with two return services had been revised by the RTA when it passed the resolution dated 9th March, 1976, whereby the RTA, had revised the scope 4 permits with two return services daily. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the fact that resolution dated 9th March, 1976, passed by the RTA had been quashed by the Tribunal by its order dated 13th July, 1976, does not mean that the earlier resolution dated 7th November, 1968 passed by the RTA has revived. I am of the opinion that the said contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner cannot be-accepted. In passing the re solution dated 9th March, 1976, whereby the RTA increased the scope from two permits to four permits the RTA had proceeded on the erroneous basis that in 1968, the scope had been fixed at two permits with one return service daily and on that basis, the RT A had decided to increase the scope on the route. The resolution of the RTA dated 9th March, 1976 cannot be construed to be a decision of the RTA revising the earlier resolution dated 7th November, 1968 so as to reduce the scope on the route from five permits to four permits. The quashing of the afore-said resolution of the RTA dated 9th March, 1976, by the Tribunal, by its order dated I3th July, 19/6, therefore, does not mean that the resolution dated 7th November, 1968 passed by the RTA has also been set aside by the Tribunal. Even if the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the resolution dated 7th November, 1968 has also been quashed by the Tribunal is accepted, the result would be that the position as it existed under the resolution of the RTA dated October 21 22, 1964 would be restored and under the said resolution. the scope fur Pali-Ahore route was four permits. In my view, therefore the Tribunal has not committed any error in proceeding on the basis that the earlier resolution dated 7th November, 1968, passed by the RTA whereby the scope was increased to five permits with two return service daily continues to be operative and there is no error in the order of the Tribunal directing for grant of two non-temporary permits to the respondents in this case.

4. The second submission which has been advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that a part of the Pali-Ahore route overlaps a nationalised route and the Tribunal was not competent to direct the issue of permits to the respondents in view of the prohibition contained in Section 68 FF of the Motor Vehicles Act. I find that a portion of about five Kilo meters from Pali to Mlandli on the Pali to Ahore route, is a part of notified route In Section 68.FF of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is laid down that in a case where the scheme has been published under Sub-section (3) of Section 68-D in respect of any notified area or notified route, the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be. shall not grant any permit except in accordance with the provisions of the scheme My attention has been invited to the notification dated 3rd August, 1976 issued by the Rajasthan Government whereby the RTA has been empowered to allow overlapping of the notified area, route or portion not exceeding 10 Kilo meters to the private permit holders with the condition that such permits holders shall not Pick up and set down passengers on such overlapped portion and that the RTA has allowed the Pali-Mandli notified portion of the route to be overlapped by private permit holders on the Pali Gundor route via Mandli on condition that they will not pick up and set down passengers in between Pali and Mandli. Similar, condition has been imposed by the RTA in respect of other permits. Thus, there is no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal, directing the RTA to grant non-temporary permits to the respondents on the Pali-Ahore route in this case.

5. In any event, the petitioner has failed to establish that the grant of non-temporary permit to the respondents in pursuance of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal has caused any injury of a substantial nature to the petitioner or that the said order has resulted in substantial failure of justice' There is, therefore, no merit in these writ petitions & the same are dismissed summarily. There will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //