SHRIMAL, J. - (1.) THIS special appeal under section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance is directed against the judgment dated October 1, 1980, delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1354/80, filed by Popat Lal, a transferee of a stage carriage permit on the Udaipur-Mandi route from Gunwant Lal. The learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition observed that the order dated 7. 8. 80 whereby the Tribunal appointed under the Motor Vehicles Act, refused to summon the General Manager, Rajasthan Roadways as a witness is an interlocutory order and that therefore the same cannot be interfered with by this Court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Learned Single Judge also took note of the fact that, earlier on September 12, 1976, also, letter of request had been issued to the General Manager by the Tribunal to appear before it as a witness, but he did not care to appear.
(2.) THE facts giving rise to this special appeal are that one Gunwantlal held a permit of vehicle No. RJJ 279 on the route of Dungarpur Mandi which was to expire on January 29, 1991. THE scheme of nationalisation of the route Dungarpur-Mandi was published in the Rajasthan gazette on April 3, 1976, under section 68 C of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939. Objections were filed by Gunwantlal. During the course of inquiry, he filed interrogatories for answer by the General Manager. THE answers filed by the General Manager are available on the record of the Tribunal. THEre after, a request was made to the Tribunal to summon the General Manager for being examined viva voce on behalf of Gunwantlal. A letter of request was issued to the General Manager but he did not care to appear before the Tribunal. Legal Remembrancer No. 2 who constitutes the Tribunal in this case allowed the matter to drag/on before him for a number of years. In early 1980, when Gunwantlal found that the matter may after all be finally decided, he transferred his permit to Popat Lal. After acquiring the permit, Popatlal made an application on May 17, 1980, for an order summoning the General Manager once again to appear as a witness in the enquiry. It may be mentioned here that the date, May 17, 1980, when the said application was made by Popat Lal was the date fixed in the enquiry for hearing of final arguments. Obviously, Popat Lal was out to re-open the case and start the innings afresh. The learned Tribunal, keeping in view the ratio decidendi of the cases reported in Capital Multipurpose Cooperative Societies, Bhopal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (I), M/s Nehru Motor Transport Cooperative Society Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan (2), held that it lay with the Tribunal only to issue the letter of request and that the person summoned was not bound to appear before it and as such no useful purpose would be served by issuing fresh summons. The Tribunal was of opinion that the application had been filed just to delay the proceedings. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected the application and refused to issue another letter of request to the General Manager. Not being satisfied with the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court which came up for decision before the learned Single Judge and the same was dismissed as already mentioned above. Hence this special appeal. We have given our careful consideration to the arguments advanced before us by the learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that there is no direct authority on the point regarding the maintainability of a writ for non-summoning of a witness by the Tribunal holding enquiry regarding the nationalisation of a route. He however placed reliance on N. Marulappa vs. State of Karnataka (3), Raghubir Singh Gill vs. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Orissa (4) and Chhote Lal Mehta vs. State of Rajasthan (5 ). None of these authorities has any relevance to the present case. In Capital Multipurpose Cooperative Societies, Bhopal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Supra), one of the points requiring determination was whether the order of Legal Remembrancer rejecting the prayer for issuing of summons or letter of request to the General Manager to appear before him can be said to be illegal entitling the petitioner to file a writ This question also arose in case No. (4) (supra ). It was observed in that case that : "further, reliance in this connection is placed on the observation of this Court in Nehru Motor Transport Co-operative Society's case (1964) 1 S. C. R220; (A. I. R. 1963 S. C. 1098) that the authority might help the objectors by issuing summonses. This observation in our opinion does not mean, in the absence of any provision in the Act or the rules, that the authority was bound to summon witnesses even though the persons summoned were not bound to obey the summonses as there was no provision in law for issue of such summonses. " The above noted observations were read with approval and followed by the Supreme Court in Saraswati Devi vs. State of U. P. (6) wherein their Lordships held that these observations had their concurrence and that they did not find that any right of the appellants was infringed when their applications for summoning witnesses and production of document was rejected. In the opinion of their Lordships, if no right of the petitioner is infringed, he cannot maintain a writ on the ground of non-summoning of a witness by the Legal Remembrancer.
(3.) BEFORE concluding, we are constrained to observe that a simple scheme of nationalisation of a route has not been allowed by the interested parties to be finalised for as many as five years. Legal Remembrancer No. 2 who has been hearing the objections to the scheme does not seem to realise the crucial importance of expedition in such matters. The Road Transport Corporation also does not appear to have shown any anxiety for early disposal of the matter. Even today, the State Road Transport Corporation tried to delay the matter and sought adjournment without any valid reason. We rejected their request and proceeded to hear arguments in the case. That is how we are able to dispose of this appeal today inspite of request for adjournment on behalf of the respondent Corporation. We find no reason to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The special appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine. .;