BALIA, J. - (1.) THESE 11 appeals arise out of 11 writ petitions filed by respective respondent No. 1 in each case against the common order delivered by learned Single Judge by considering 11 petitions alongwith some other petitions on 27. 07. 2001.
(2.) THE facts necessary for the present purpose may be chaffed. All the respondents No. 1 have been granted permits by the regional Transport Authority, Bikaner on 29. 2. 96 for inter-State route Hanumangarh to Dabawali via Sangaria covering State of Rajasthan and State of Haryana. At that time, when these permits were granted, the agreement entered between the two States for this route in 1968 was in force. THEre respective respondents were holding permits under that agreement from different dates since before commencement of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 under the repealed Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Until grant of permits vide order dated 292. 96 in replacement of earlier permits, all the permits were renewed from time to time under the Act of 1988 also. There was some controversy whether permits granted under 1939 Act could be renewed after its repeal, under the new Act of 1988. That controversy was ultimately settled by decision of Supreme Court in Secy. QDM Transport Workers Co-operative Society Limited. vs. RTA (1 ). It was held that permits issued under Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 cannot be renewed under Act of 1988 in the absence of any provision to that effect under the New Act. Albeit the stage carriage permits granted under 1939 Act, after its repeal, will continue to be operative only till expiry of their remaining period. Therefore fresh application for grant or permit has to be made, by any one desirous of continuing with their existing permits. The applicants, which included RSRTC, and stated in their applications that new permits may be issued to them in lieu of old permits. It has been further brought to notice of the Court during the course of hearing that in order to maintain the continuity of the permits granted under the 1939 Act even after its repeal under the new Act by process of renewal, finally Sec. 217-A was inserted in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide Central Act No. 27 of 2000 w. e. f. 11. 8. 2000. Be that as it may, the order dated 29. 2. 96 dealt with number of applications. 13 permits were granted in favour of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation alongwith permits to respondents-petitioners and other persons for five years. All the permits were subject to condition that they will obtain countersignature from the competent authority of Haryana State within a period of six months failing which the permit shall automatically stand cancelled. This order dated 29. 2. 96 was not subject matter of challenge before any authority at anytime. The permits of the respondent- petitioners in each case were countersigned. The permits issued in favour of RSRTC could not be countersigned, therefore, their permits did not fructify at any time into inter-State route permits. The permits were to be obtained within 60 days from the date of order failing which the sanction for permit would automatically stand cancelled.
(3.) ON 9. 7. 97, State of Haryana and State of Rajasthan entered into a fresh reciprocal agreement in respect of inter-State routes between the two States which included the route in question viz. Hanumangarh-Dabawali via Sangaria. The agreement was published on 22. 07. 1997. Under the 1997 agreement scope of 13 permits with 16 single trip was fixed by Rajasthan State. Assuming that the scope fixed under the agreement of 1997 was in addition to existing permits, particularly in view of the fact that under clause 4 (iv) of the new agreement, those existing permits which had been countersigned at or before the commencement of agreement were saved, new applications were moved before the Regional Transport Authority for grant of fresh permits. Such application were rejected by the Regional Transport Authority vide his order dated 25. 4. 98 on the ground that no vacancy existed in view of existing permits operating on the route. This order was challenged before the STAT. Therefore, 9 other application were filed for grant of new permits before the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner which were disposed of by it on 8th Nov. , 1998 by holding that though permits cannot be granted under Sec. 88 (6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 but the same can be issued under Sec. 88 (1) of the Act as if for the part of the route within the State of Rajasthan, the Regional Transport Authority had authority to open new route covering that part of the route which fall within the State of Rajasthan. The order dated 18. 11. 98 was also subject to the appeal before the STAT. ;