MADAN LAL Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts of this ease are simple and few. The petitioner is an existing operator of Jaipur -Dholpur vis Ramgarh, Andhi, Borunda Bandh and Dausa route (hereinafter culled 'the route') and plying his vehicle on the route on a non -temporary stage carriage permit which is valid upto January 2, 1977. In July this year, on account of heavy rains and unprecedented discharge of water from the Ramgarh Bandh, the petitioner felt that it was not physically possible to ply his vehicle on the route. On July 21, 1975 the petitioner and other operators of his routs submitted an application to the Regional Transport Authority Jaipur Region, Jaipur (hereinafter called 'the RTA.') praying that they may be allowed to ply their vehicles from Jaipur to Dausa via Kanota and Bassi instead of via Ramgarh, Andhi and Borunda Bandh, so that there may be no dislocation of the service rendered by the petitioner and other operators of his route.

(2.) THE R.T.A. by this order dated July 21, 1375 allowed the aforesaid application and permitted the petitioner and other operators of his route to ply their vehicles from Jaipur to Dausa via Kanota and Bassi, subject to the condition that such diversion would be allowed to them till such time as Ramgarh Bandh continued to stand in danger and till the plying of vehicle on the route was no physically possible due to a portion of the name being submerged in water on account of excessive discharge of water from the Ramgarh Bandh. It appears that on the next day, it was realised by the R.T.A. that the route from Jaipur to Dausa via Kanota and Bassi routes from Jaipur to Bassi was part of the notified Sharanpur and Jaipur to Sainthal and, therefore, by a later order passed on July 2, 1975 the R.T.A. modified its order of July 21, 1975 to the extent that the petitioner and other operators of his route were directed not to pick up or drop passengers between Jaipur and Dausa on the notified portion of the route, the operators of Dausa Gangapur route, when they came to know about the grant of the aforesaid diversion to the petitioner and his co operators, submitted objections before the R.T.A. and requested that the aforesaid permission granted to the petitioner and other operators of the route be cancelled The R.T.A. thereupon after giving notice to the petitioner and other operators of his route and after hearing them and the objectors namely, the operators of Dausa -Ganeapur route, by its order dated July 24, 1975 cancelled its earlier order dated July 21, 1975 The reasons which prevailed with the R.T.A, for cancelling the permission earlier granted by it were two fold, firstly that the provisions of Section 42(3)(m) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') could not be employed for the purpose of granting a temporary diversion to the petitioner and other operators of his rent for plying regular bus service from Jaipur to Dausa via Kapota and Bassi, and secondly that a temporary diversion of such a nature could not be allowed for plying buses on a portion of the notified route, inasmuch as an approved scheme of complete exclusion, in respect of Jaipur Sainthal route, which included the portion from Jaipur to Dausa via Kanota and Bassi has already been notified long ago.

(3.) WHEN the case came up for hearing before this Court on October 6, 1975 the Additional Government Advocate, who appeared on behalf of the R.T.A., was directed to verify as to whether the route from Jaipur to Dausa via Ramgarh, Andahi and Borunds Bandh or any portion there of was still submerged in eater and whether it was not physically possible to apply a stage carriage on any portion of the route. In camphene of the aforesaid direction, the Additional Government Advocate has submitted the report of a survey said to have been made on the spot by two Inspectors of the Transport Department, according to which a vehicle of Jaipur Sawai Madhopur route was found plying on October 16, 1975 on the route from Dausa to Jaipur via Bandh Borunda and Andhi. From the aforesaid report it appears that now it can not be said that it is physically into possible to ply over the route of the petitioner when another bus of Jaipur Sawai Madhopur route, having the same sanctioned via from Jaipur to Dausa was found plying on hat part of the rout. The petitioner has submitted an affidavit on one Kajormal on October 20, 1975 starting that on account of excessive rains huge mud has collected on the road and it is not possible for any vehicle to pass through it. I am not inclined to accept the affidavit filed by Kajormal in view of the report submitted by the Inspectors of the Transport Department, who have found the vehicle of Jaipur, Swami Madhopur route actually plying on the portion of the route from Jaipur to Dausa via Ramgarh, Andhi and Borunda Bandh. The permission granted by the R.T.A. to the petitioner and other operators of his route on July 21, 1975 specified two conditions, namely firstly that the Ramgarsh Bandh continued to stand in danger and secondly that the plying of vehicles on the sanctioned route was not physically possible dure to submerging of the concerned route resulting from the excessive discharge of the water form the Bandh. It is not the case of the petitioner that Ramgarh Bandhu still continues to stand in danger and as regards the other condition. I have already mentioned above, the report filed impossible to ply on the route and that the route or a portion thereof was not submerged in water. In this view of the matter, the permission granted by the R.T.A. on July 21, 1975 has automatically come to an end and no longer available to the petitioner.