CHARANJIT Vs. R T A BIKANER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tese two writ petitions involve common question of law and so, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) The facts necessary for the disposal of these two writ petitions briefly stated are :

(3.) If was further submitted that in Ram Krishna Verma v. State of U.P., AIR 1992 SC 1888, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed as under 'Draft scheme under S. 68C and approved under S. 68D of Chapter IVA of the Repealed Act (Chapter VI of the Act), is a law and it has overriding effect over (Chapter IV) of the repealed Act (Chapter V of the new Act of 1988). It operates against everyone unless it is modified. It excludes private operators from the area or route or a portion thereof covered under the scheme except to the extent excluded under that scheme itself. The right of private operators to apply for and to obtain permits under Chapter IV of the repealed Act (Chapter V of the Act) has been frozen and prohibited.' On the basis of this judgement, it was sub-mitted that the respondent R. T. A. Bikaner patently lacks jurisdiction to entertain any application for the grant of any permit temporary or non-temporary, on the said Hanumangarh to Sangaria draft scheme route as it forms part and parcel of the Hanumangarh to Surewali via Shergarh route. The R.T.A. patently lacks jurisdiction to entertain any application for the grant of a permit, temporary or non-temporary, on the said Hanumangarh to Surewali route and to grant any permit thereon.