- (1.) THESE four writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution have been filed by two sets of petitioners for getting certain order of the Joint Legal remembrancer, Government of Raiasthan, Jaipur quashed. Since the grounds raised for quashing the main order are not only common, but the same arguments have been advanced by both the parties, It shall be convenient as well as proper to decide them by one order. In order to appreciate the legal questions involved, the facts of one writ petition i. e. No. 76 of 1971 are given in details.
(2.) THE petitioners of writ petition No. 76 of 1971 are operators on Shahpura-Bijai nagar via Gulabpura route and are plying their bus R. J. E. 462 on that route. A scheme under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was published by the General Manager, Rajasthan State Road transport Corporation. Jaipur in the Raiasthan Raipatra dated 13-1-1966 in respect of Ajmer-Bhilwara and Ajmer-Bhinai routes vide Annexture P/1. In this writ petition we are concerned with Ajmer-Bhilwara route only. The petitioners' route is overlapped by Ajmer-Bhilwara route from Bijainagar to Gulabpura which is a distance of about one and a half miles. The petitioners therefore, sent objections in respect of that scheme by registered post to the Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan. Transport Department on 1-3-1966 vide Annexure P/2. Thereafter respondent No. 2 Joint Legal Remembrancer issued a notice in the Raiasthan rajpatra dated 24-10-1966 that he would be hearing objections to the Ajmer-Bhilwara scheme on 15-12-1966. The petitioners on that date moved an application challenging the jurisdiction of the Joint Legal Remembrancer in hearing objections and explaining the delay also in the filing of the objections with a prayer that the objections may be treated as within time. According to the petitioners the joint Legal Remembrancer on 17-6-1967 dismissed the application of the petitioner on the ground that he had jurisdiction to proceed with the scheme, but at the some time he did not decide the question of limitation expressly and asked all the objectors in respect to that scheme to produce their evidence. In this the petitioner took that their objection was treated within time by the Joint Legal remembrancer. Meanwhile the Supreme Court while deciding Civil Appeals Nos. 1381 and 1384 of 1967 on January 4. 1968 observed as follows:-- "appointment of the Joint Legal Remembrancer to hear the abjections was made under Rule 7 of the Rules framed in the year 1960 and the scheme was published pursuant to Rule 8 of Rules. If the Rules framed by the Government be deemed to have become ineffective there was no authority competent to hear the objections and to publish the scheme. " Upon the basis of the above observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court the objectors again filed objections with regard to the jurisdiction of the Joint Legal remembrancer, which was repelled by the Joint Legal Remembrancer by his order dated 13-2-1970. Some writ petitions were filed (not by the petitioners) by some persons, who were aggrieved by the order of the Joint Legal Remembrancer dated 13-2-1970 in this Court. On 12-3-1970 this Court stayed further proceedings before the Joint Legal Remembrancer vide Annexure P/3. On 30-5-1970 the State of Raiasthan issued another notification vide Annexure P/5 appointing Joint Legal remembrancer afresh for hearing objections as a result of which the writ petitions filed against the order of the Joint Legal Remembrancer dated 13-2-1970 became infructuous and were dismissed as such by this Court on 31-7-1970 vide Annexure p/6. By another notification dated 14-7-1970 under Section 68-D of 'the Act' the state of Rajas-than appointed the Deputy Legal Remembrancer also to consider various schemes published under Section 68-C of 'the Act' vide Annexure P/7. The joint Legal Remembrancer notified in the Raiasthan Rajpatra that he would be hearing objections in regard to Ajmer-Bhilwara route on 6-10-1970. As 6-10-1970 was declared holiday the scheme was taken up by the Joint Legal Remembrancer on 7-10-1970. On that date the petitioners filed three applications before the Joint legal Remembrancer, copies of which are Annexures P/9, P/10 and P/11. On 2610-1970 the Joint Legal Remembrancer dismissed two applications Annexures P/9 and P/10 by separate orders vide Annexures P/13 and P/14. He called upon the objectors to produce their evidence on 7-12-1970. It is alleged by the petitioners that when the petitioners were ready with their evidence on 7-12-1970, the Joint legal Remembrancer refused to receive the same by order Annexure P/16 and thus rejected the application of the petitioners Annex, P/11.
(3.) IT might be stated here that by application Annexure P/10 the petitioners challenged the publication of the scheme in respect of Ajmer-Bhilwara and Ajmer-Bhinai routes on the ground that it was not published in accordance with the provisions of Section 68-C of 'the Act. ' This application was dismissed by order annexure P/14 dated 26-10-1970 and even though in the prayer clause of the writ petition Annexure P/14 is also sought to be quashed, in fact during the course of hearing, which lasted for three years. 110 argument was raised against Annexure p/14 by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In other words he did not challenge the validity of Annexure P/14 at all.;