VINOD CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that Rule 5. 16 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 may be declared as ultra-vires and it may be declared that there is no provision either under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990, authorising the Regional Transport Authority to fix rotation of the stage carriages on a route and lastly, it is also prayed that the order dated 3. 9. 1991 of the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur may be quashed.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that Banswara to Sallopat route lies in Udaipur Region. It is 70 kms. in length and is 'a' Class route. THE Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur earlier sanctioned five stage carriage permits on the route. THE petitioner is holding one out of the said five permits being permit No. P. St. 2274/85 valid upto 2. 6. 1993. THE Regional Transport Authority by the resolution dated 24. 2. 1990 included Sallopat to Monadungar 21 kms. portion in the said permit, out of which 6 kms. lies in the State of Rajasthan 15 Kms. in the State of Gujarat. Hence the route has become Banswara to Monadungar and the petitioner is providing a regular passenger transport service on the route. Respondent No. 3 on 16. 10 1990 submitted an application for grant of a stage carriage permit on the said route. He also proposed his time-table in column No. 12 of the application. THE Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur in its meeting dated 15. 3. 1991 granted three permits including the one granted in favour of the respondent No. 3. It was endorsed that the petitioner will provide one return service daily. THE said resolution of the Regional Transport Authority was challenged in a revision petition before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur and stay order was granted in favour of two other grantees. THE respondent No. 3, however, availed the sanctioned permit before the said resolution was reducedinto writing and permit was also issued to respondents No. 3 and 4. With the issue of the permits simultaneously the time table as proposed by him was sanctioned by the Regional Transport Authority. THE petitioner received a notice from the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur in the second week of August, 1991. In the said notice it was mentioned that the respondent No. 3 has submitted an application on 3. 7. 1991 for permitting him to ply his bus in rotation with the existing permit holders. A copy of the application was not endorsed. However, the copy of the notice which was received by the petitioner has been placed on the record as Annex. 4. THE date fixed was 28. 8. 1991, but, as the date was too short, therefore, the matter was adjourerd to 25. 9. 1991. A copy of the time table fixed by the Authority for providing five daily services on the route by the order dated 30. 4. 1990 is submitted as Annex. 5 on the record. During the pendency of these proceedings which were initiated on the application moved by the respondent No. 3 dated 3. 7. 1991, the petitioner came to know on 18. 9. 1991 that the Member, Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur on 3. 9. 1991 passed an order directing all the permit holders including the petitioner to ply their vehicles by rotation with the respondent No. 3. THE Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur in pursuance of the said order issued letters to the existing permit holders including the petitioner to ply their buses in rotation with the respondent No. 3. A copy of the letter has been placed on the record as Annex. 6. In this back-ground the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the validity of Rule 5. 16 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Rules of 1990') and the order Annex. 6 as well as the order dated 3. 9. 1991.

(3.) AS against this Mr. Vyas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 and the Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State have strenuously urged that Rule 5. 16 of the Rules of 1990 is neither arbitrary nor has it become redundant in view of the provisions of Sections 70, 71 and 72 of the Act of 1988. Learned counsel further submitted that the condition of time-table as given in the permit does not amount to bearing a condition of permit in view of the decision given in the case of Kalusingh vs. Transport Appellate Tribunal Learned counsel further submitted that in the case of Ram Kumar vs. Regional Transport Authority (3), similar question was also agitated and the learned Single Judge has taken the same view that the change of time-table as given in the permits does not amount to change of condition of permit. Learned counsel submitted that the timetable as given in the permit has not been changed, therefore, the petitioner's right to ply the vehicle will not affect by plying the vehicle in rotation. Learned counsel further submitted that the order of the Regional Transport Authority is a provisional one and it is subject to revision. Therefore, this Court should not interfere with it at the instance of the petitioner in its extraordinary jurisdiction and the petitioner should be directed to file a revision against that order.