Decided on September 10,1968


Cited Judgements :-



- (1.)THESE four special appeals filed under Section 18 (1) of the Rajasthan High Court ordinance No. 15 of 1949 are directed against the judgment of Hon'ble Kansingh J dated 11-7-68 by which the learned Judge allowed the writ application filed bv m/s. Martinhail Ex-Service-men Cooperative Transport Society Ltd. , Khetri (which is the only contesting respondent before us) and which will be referred to as "society" hereinafter for the sake of brevity ). The resolution of the Regional transport Authority, Jaipur Region, Jaipur (Item No. 2/109) dated 22/23rd december, 1967, has been set aside and the permits for stage carriage granted to the appellants in appeals Nos. 33, 34 and 35 on Jaipur-Khetri route have been cancelled by the judgment under appeal, and the Regional Transport Authority has been further directed 'to decide the application of the Society, as also of other applicants like the Society, if pending, along with the applications of the appellants and others like them. Appeal No. 36 of 1968 has been preferred by the Regional transport Authority, but the parties, who are really aggrieved and who in fact are adversely affected by the judgment under appeal are the appellants in appeals nos. 33, 34 and 35 of 1963 and as such these parties to whom the permits have been granted will be referred to as "appellants" in this judgment for the sake of brevity.
(2.)THE Society is an existing operator along with 19 others on Jhunihunu-Nim-ka-Thana route, 64 miles in length. All the operators provide 12 return services. It appears that all of them applied for extension of their route from Neem-ka-Thana to Jaipur via Kanwat, Sri Madhopur, Ringas, Govindgarh and Chomu. Their applications were published in Rajasthan Rajpatra dated 21-4-66 under notification dated 2-2-66. Some new applicants including the appellants also applied for grant of fresh permits on Jaipur-Khetri Copper Mines route, which overlap the Society's route by 30 miles. These applications were also published. By its resolution No. 30 (item No. 2/31) dated 16-9-67 the Regional Transport Authority resolved that the applications for extension of the route Jhunjhunu-Nim-ka-Thana to Jaipur as well as those for grant of fresh permits on Jaipur-Khetri route would be considered together. Again by a subsequent resolution dated 20-10-67 the Regional Transport authority directed that "all the applications (for different vias of Jaipur-Khetri copper Project route) may be sorted out end put up along with item No. 109 of the Agenda listed for the Regional Transport Authority meeting to be held on 6th, 7th and 8th November, 1967," In the meeting held on 8-11-67 it was observed that all the items after item No. 2/105 would be taken up in the next meeting of 21-12-67 and the meeting was adjourned to the next day, i. e. 9-11-67. On 9-1167 it was again observed that the applications for (1) Extension of Jaipur Sikar amalgamated route from Sri Madhopur to khutri Mines (item No. 8/1); (2) Extension of Jhunjhunu-Nim-ka-Thana route upto Jaipur (item No. 8/2); and (3) Grant of fresh permits over Jaipur-Khetri Copper Mines route (item no. 2/41)may be decided along with item No. 2/109 on 21-12-67. On 21-12-67, the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority could not be held for want of quorum and was adjourned to 22-12-67, In the meeting held on 22/23-12-67 the Regional transport Authority considered the applications of the appellants as also of other persons, who had applied for permit on Jaipur-Khetri Copper Mines route and granted 18 permits to non-petitioners Nos. 2 to 19 in the writ application and postponed the consideration of the Society's application as well as the applications of other operators for extension and resolved that the routes from Jaipur to jhunjhunu via Chomu, Ringas, Sri Madhopur, Nim-ka-Thana, and Jaipur, --Jhunjhunu via Chomu-Kingas-Kharidela-Udaipurwati Guda Badgaon be first surveyed. The Society's case is that the impugned resolution of the Regional transport Authority granting permits to the appellants is bad inasmuch as the regional Transport Authority was bound to consider the application of the Society along with the applications of the appellants inasmuch as the Society, it is alleged, was a candidate for extension of its permit over the same route for which the appellants had applied. It was contended that according to several pronouncements of this Court, the Regional Transport Authority committed a patent illegality in granting permits to the appellants while keeping the Society's application pending, so as to give advantage to the appellants over the Society,
(3.)IN the reply filed before the learned single Judge on behalf of the appellants it was pleaded that the Society was not an applicant for permit over the same route for which the appellants had applied and that the route for which the appellants had been granted permits was distinct from the route for which the Society had applied for extension. It was, therefore, urged on behalf of the appellants that the principle laid down in some of the decided cases of this court, relied upon by the society had no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. It was also urged that the Society had indulged in several mis-statements in the writ application and. therefore, the writ application should be dismissed. It was further pleaded that since the Society had not filed objections to the applications filed by the appellants, it had no locus standi to challenge the permits granted to them.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.