- (1.) ALL these petitions have been filed against the judgment and order dated 29.5.2000 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal") disposing of a bunch of appeals and revisions, by which the Tribunal remanded the cases to the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner (for short, "the R.T.A.") for considering the cases afresh.
(2.) THE case has a chequerred history as there have been several rounds of litigation in respect of grant of same permits. THEre are groups of operators having conflicting interests. One group of permit holders claims that they have been operating on the inter-State route Hanumangarh to Dubwali via Sangaria falling within the territories of the States of Haryana and Rajasthan, since 16.3.1963. THEir permits stood renewed from time to time by the R.T.A. and counter signed by the Competent Authority in the State of Haryana. THEir permits were renewed even after commencement of the new Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the New Act") and counter-signed by the Haryana Authority. THEre remained uncertainty on the legal issue: whether permits granted under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short, "the Old Act") can be renewed under the provisions of the New Act as the Hon'ble Supreme Court had given contradictory judgments, while interpreting the provisions of Section 217 of the New Act, in M/s. Gurcharan Singh Baldev Singh vs. Yashwant Singh (1) and Secy. Quillon Distt. Motor Transport Workers Coop. Society Ltd. vs. Regional Transport Authority (2). Later on, the controversy was resolved by a Larger Bench in Gajraj Singh & ors. vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal & Ors. (3), holding that the permits granted under the Old Act could not be renewed under the New Act. Though the permits of all these operators/petitioners had been counter-signed but taking abundant caution, they also applied for fresh grant under the New Act. The Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short, "the Corporation") also applied for grant of permits on the same route. The R.T.A., vide its resolution dated 29.2.1996, granted thirteen permits to the Corporation and eleven permits in favour of the applicants/petitioners stipulating that the said permits were being granted over and above the ceiling fixed by the reciprocal agreement. These eleven permits were duly counter-signed by the Competent Authority of Haryana in April, 1996 for a period of five years and they have been plying their vehicles on the route. In the meanwhile, a new agreement between the States took place and its final publications in the Gazette of Haryana and Rajasthan were made and it came into effect on 22.7.97. The said agreement provided that thirteen permits could be granted by the State of Rajasthan on the said route and Clause 4 thereof stipulated that permits, which had been counter-signed by the State of Haryana, would remain valid. Such petitioners were allowed to ply their vehicle under the said agreement also. In Zamindara Motor Transport Co-operative Society vs. Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner & Ors. (4), this court held that Transport Authority had no competence to grant permits over and above the ceiling fixed by reciprocal agreement. The earlier judgments of this Court in Sahib Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (5); Sunil Kumar Ajmera vs. Secretary, State Transport Authority (6) and New Vijay Laxmi Co. vs. State (7) where it had been held that the permits could be granted over and over the strength fixed by reciprocal agreement, lost sanctity because of the amendment in the Act with effect from 14.11.94. The said judgment stood confirmed by the Division Bench, vide judgment and order in State of Rajasthan vs. Gyan Singh & Anr. (8). The law has also been clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashwani Kumar vs. Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner (9) that the Transport Authority does not have competence to grant or counter sign permits over and above the ceiling fixed by the reciprocal agreement. In view of the above, the R.T.A. rejected a large number of applications pending for consideration for grant of permits holding that there was no vacancy on the route and the question of considering the said applications did not arise. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the said applicants filed appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide its judgments and order dated 24.7.99, allowed the said appeals holding that the permits granted and counter signed prior to the reciprocal agreement dated 22.7.97 either in favour of Corporation or private operators were not saved, by the said agreement and, thus, there were thirteen clear vacancies on the route and the R.T.A. was directed to reconsider the applications. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Corporation and two existing operators since 1963, namely, Sohan Lal and Yogendra Singh, filed SBCWP Nos. 2986/99, 3010/99, 3998/99 and 4005/99 before this Court on the ground that the Tribunal delivered the judgment on 24.7.99 making observations that permits granted prior to the agreement dated 22.7.97 were not saved by the said agreement, without giving opportunity of hearing to them and they were adversely affected by the said judgment. This court, vide orders dated 9.9.99 and 8.10.99, stayed the operation of Tribunal's order dated 24.7.99. The said writ petitions were disposed of by this Court vide judgment and order dated 14.2.2000, setting aside the judgment and order of the Tribunal dated 24.7.99 and directing the Tribunal to decide the case afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned. Prior to the disposal of the said writ petitions by this court on 14.2.2000 and during the period in which interim orders passed by this Court were in force, the R.T.A. considered the applications in pursuance of the order of the Tribunal dated 24.7.99 and granted thirteen permits vide resolution dated 2.11.1999. Against that, revision Nos. 5-8 of 2000 were filed before the Tribunal. As the cases had been sent back to the Tribunal by this Court, vide judgment and order dated 14.2.2000, after setting-aside its earlier judgment dated 24.7.1999, the Tribunal heard all the cases together and passed the impugned judgment and order dated 29.5.2000, by which persons who had been plying their vehicles since 1963, had been found non-suited on the ground that prior to commencement of the agreement dated 22.7.97, they had been granted permits over and above the ceiling fixed by the reciprocal agreement. Permits of the grantees, vide resolution dated 2.11.99, were found to be illegal on the ground that the said resolution had been passed inspite of the interim orders passed by this Court on 9.9.99 and 8.10.98 and moreso, the very basis of considering the applications disappeared as the judgment and order of the Tribunal dated 24.7.99 stood set aside by this Court vide order dated 14.2.2000. Corporation was also found non-suited for want of counter signatures of its permits by the Haryana Authority. Hence, these petitions. S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.1856/2000 and 1896/2000 have been filed by thirteen grantees vide resolution dated 2.11.99 on the ground that grant of permits in their favour could not have been set aside by the Tribunal for the reasons that the same had been made inspite of the interim orders passed by this court on 9.9.99 and 8.10.99 as those interim orders had not been communicated to the R.T.A. Moreso, the said interim orders stood vacated subsequently vide order dated 30.12.99 and ultimately the writ petition petitions were disposed of directing the Tribunal to decide the matter afresh. So far as vacating the said interim orders vide orders dated 30.12.99 is concerned, the same could not materially affect the merit of the case for the reason that the resolution dated 2.11.99 had been passed during the operation of the interim orders. Moreso, judgment in those writ petitions finally supports the judgment of the Tribunal as the judgment dated 24.7.99 passed by the Tribunal, conferring jurisdiction upon the R.T.A. to reconsider the case, stood set aside by the order of this Court dated 14.2.2000. Therefore, the only question remains: whether in absence of communication of the said interim orders to the R.T.A., the resolution could be held to be valid?
(3.) UNDISPUTEDLY, the said orders were passed after hearing Mr.R.P. Dave, learned Standing Counsel for the R.T.A. In Ganesh Mal Surana vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (10), a Division Bench of this Court held as under:- "When the order has been passed by the High Court in the presence of the counsel for the respondents then it means that the order has been passed in presence of the parties themselves and the parties had the knowledge of the stay order." Similar view had been reiterated in Mohinuddin & Ors. vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (11). Judicial Discipline requires the Single Judge to follow the law laid down by the Coordinate Bench/Larger Bench and there are no special features in the present case which may distinguish the case from the Division Bench judgment of this court in Ganesh Mal surana (supra). Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that even if none of the parties placed copies of the said interim orders before the R.T.A., as the Authority was represented by the counsel before this Court, it tantamount to passing the orders in presence of the R.T.A. ;