G.M.LODHA, J. - (1.) PETITIONER , Champalal, has filed this writ petition, claiming, himself to be a bus vehicle opertator and has made the following prayer: It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the writ petition may kindly be accepted and a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writs, order or direction which may be deemed proper in the circumstances of the case be kindly issued, setting aside and quashing the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur dated 5 -3 -79 to the extent of making direction to the R.T.A. that the period of 4 months allowed to the petitioner for engaging a higher model vehicle should not be extended, and order dated 3 -7 -79 passed by Secretery R.T.A, Bikaner.
(2.) THE Order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, (hereinafter called to as 'the Tribunal'), dated the 5th March, 1979, contains the following important directions: When the appellant does not have a ready vehicle even today and the respondents had already obtained permits on the vehicles which were offered by them then the subsequent fact that the respondent No. 3 has taken permission to sell the vehicle and replace it with a higher model will not lower his position vis -a -vis the appellant. It is an admitted position that respondent No. 3 has not so far replaced his vehicles and is not plying on the route at all, but as the Secretary RTA has already granted him 4 months time to replace the vehicle, then in view of this permission his permit should not be cancelled. However, it is necessary to make a direction to the RTA that this period of 4 months allowed to him for engaging a higher model vehicle should not be extended. In this appeal before the Tribunal, Loonaram was the appellant and Champalal was the respondent No. 3. The discussion, in the order dated the 5th March, 1979, goes to show that the appeal of Loonaram was rejected substantially on this ground and the direction, mentioned above, was one of main grounds for rejecting appeal of Loonaram. It is surprising that the petitioner, Champalal, now wants to take a somersault and get rid of this direction also. It is difficult to appreciate that when he has sold vehicle under an express understanding, that he would replace it within 4 months, why should he try to riggle out of it now.
(3.) SHRI B.L. Maheshwari, who appeared for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal was not competent in an nppeal filed by Loonaram to impose such a restriction or fetter or limitations in respect of period given for the replacement to Champalal and it was beyond jurisdiction of the Tribunal.;