- (1.) Tese two writ petitions involve common question of law and so, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.
(2.) The facts necessary for the disposal of these two writ petitions briefly stated are : (1) FACTS OF CHARANJIT'S CASE : The petitioner is an existing permit holder covering Bus No. RSK 493 on Hanumangarh to Sirsa via Shergarh Surewali route which is an inter-state route, which has not now been curtailed upto Surewali route. His permit is valid upto 31-8-1993. It is alleged that the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as 'RSRTC') prepared a draft shceme under Section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the old Act') (since repealed) vide Notification No. F.4 plan/RSRTC/Tr. 483 in respect of four routes including Hanumangarh to Sangaria via Shergarh, Nagrana and portions thereof. The said draft scheme came to be published in Part VII of the Rajasthan Gazette (Annexure-1) dated 25/07/1986 for inviting objections. Clause (4) of the said draft scheme provided that the RSRTC or any other States Transport Undertaking in pursuance of any reciprocal agreement would be exclusively entitled to provide passengers transport service and no other person would be autho-rised to provide any stage carriage or contract carriage services on the said draft scheme or portions thereof. According to the petitioner, the draft schemes published under S. 68C of Chapter IV-A of the repealed Act is a law and it has overriding effect over Chapter IV of the repealed Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
(3.) If was further submitted that in Ram Krishna Verma v. State of U.P., AIR 1992 SC 1888, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed as under 'Draft scheme under S. 68C and approved under S. 68D of Chapter IVA of the Repealed Act (Chapter VI of the Act), is a law and it has overriding effect over (Chapter IV) of the repealed Act (Chapter V of the new Act of 1988). It operates against everyone unless it is modified. It excludes private operators from the area or route or a portion thereof covered under the scheme except to the extent excluded under that scheme itself. The right of private operators to apply for and to obtain permits under Chapter IV of the repealed Act (Chapter V of the Act) has been frozen and prohibited.' On the basis of this judgement, it was sub-mitted that the respondent R. T. A. Bikaner patently lacks jurisdiction to entertain any application for the grant of any permit temporary or non-temporary, on the said Hanumangarh to Sangaria draft scheme route as it forms part and parcel of the Hanumangarh to Surewali via Shergarh route. The R.T.A. patently lacks jurisdiction to entertain any application for the grant of a permit, temporary or non-temporary, on the said Hanumangarh to Surewali route and to grant any permit thereon.;