Jasbir Singh, J. - (1.) Petitioners are holding regular Stage Carriage Permits and have filed this writ petition with a prayer to issue a writ of certiorari to declare Rule 122 of the Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (in short the Rules) as void being ultra vires to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the Act).
(2.) It is case of the petitioners that Rule, referred to above, provides, contrary to the provisions of Section 68 of the Act, delegation of quasi judicial functions of the Regional Transport Authority to respondent No.3, as such, it deserves to be quashed. Respondent No.4 is also a stage carriage permit holder. He moved an application under Section 80 of the Act for variation in the route, on which, he was entitled to ply his bus, as per permit granted to him. His application was published for inviting objections. The petitioners at that stage, filed this writ petition. It was their primary grievance that as no powers have been conferred upon respondent No.3, to entertain such like applications, he has no jurisdiction to proceed further with the application moved by respondent No.4. It was positive case of the petitioners that the State Government has not issued any notification either appointing respondent No.3 or delegating the powers of Regional Transport Authority to it under Section 68 of the Act. It was further averred by the petitioners that respondent No.2 has got no jurisdiction to delegate the quasi judicial functions of the Regional Transport Authority to respondent No.3. It was further grievance of the petitioners that respondent No.4 has no jurisdiction to entertain and consider application, for grant of extension of a route, which has not been formulated by the State of Punjab under Section 68 (3)(ca) of the Act. Upon notice, reply has been filed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 and also by respondent No.4. The official respondents have said that powers have rightly been delegated by respondent No.2 to respondent No.3, by issuing a notification, copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure R/1. It has further been said that in view of the provisions of Section 68 of the Act and Rule 122 of the Rules, the delegation is perfectly justified. It has further been stated that the application of respondent No.4 is under consideration, the authority may or may not grant his prayer, as such, the writ petition, being pre-matured, be dismissed, as no cause of action has yet accrued in favour of the petitioners. Respondent No.4, in his written statement, has also justified action of respondent No.3, in entertaining his application. It has been prayed by respondent No.4 that the writ petition, having no substance, be dismissed.
(3.) At the time of arguments, Shri Kapoor, appearing for the petitioners, in view of notification Annexure R/1, has not pressed his argument that the respondent No.3 is not competent to entertain application of respondent No.4 for variation in his route permit. Counsel for the both the parties, have virtually conceded that in view of provisions of Section 68 of the Act and Rule 122 of the Rules, respondent No.2 has jurisdiction to delegate some of its powers, as per law. Shri Kapoor has primarily raised his objection regarding Rule 122 of the Rules, by stating that the same can be mis-used and on account of that, it was prayed that the later portion of Rule 122 of the Rules, be quashed, being ultra vires to the provisions of Section 68 of the Act. Prayer made has vehemently been opposed and it has been stated that no foundation has been laid to say so in the writ petition. It has further been said that Rule 122 of the Rules has been framed by exercising the powers under Section 96 of the Act and the same is perfectly valid and the provisions of this Rule are not in derogation of the provisions of Section 68 of the Act.;