A. K. MATHUR, J. - (1.) BOTH these writ-petitions involve common question of law and facts, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. For the convenient disposal of these two writ petitions, the facts given in the case of RSRTC Vs. RTA, Bikaner in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 914/1988 are taken into consideration.
(2.) THE brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner is a Corporation created under the Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to the Act of 1950 ). In Bikaner Region there is a route known as Dungargarh-Beedasar via Dharmas, Reddi, Bonna etc. in a length of 48 kms. and is 'a' Class in nature. THE respondent No. 2 held a non-temporary stage carriage permit covering vehicle No. RJE-3016 of 1967 model having its validity upto 222. 1988. THE respondent No. 2 submitted an application for the renewal of his permit on 11. 6. 87 which came to be published by the respondent No. 1 in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dt. 20 8. 1987 under Section 57 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to the Act of 1939) for the purpose of inviting objections. THE petitioner corporation published a draft scheme u/s 68-C of the Act for nationalising the above route and same was published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated 25. 7. 1986. THE petitioner submits that a number of draft schemes u/s 68-C of the Act of 1939 for various routes were prepared and got published by the petitioner-corporation in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dt. 25. 7. 1986 which included this draft scheme also. One Yaduraj Singh and two others filed writ petition being SB Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1638/1986, 1640/1986 and 1941/ 1986 in the Jaipur Bench and the Jaipur Bench allowed the writ petitions and set aside the aforesaid notification. Aggrieved against this, three appeals were preferred by the corporation and the Division Bench by its judgment dated 17. 12. 1987 allowedall these appeals of the petitioner and set aside the view taken by the learned Single Judge. THE petitioner submitted that the respondent No. 2 realised that he will not be able to obtain a renewal of his permit as same cannot be refused to corporation when it makes an application u/s 68-F (1-A) of the Act of 1939. THE petitioner when came to know that the respondent No. 2 & his likes are taking steps for getting renewal of their permits from the respondent No. 1 RTA by circulation, the petitioner for opposing the renewal application of the respondent No. 2 and his likes moved five appiications for grant of non-temporary stage carriage permits to the RTA, Bikaner on 27. 10. 1987. Copy thereof has been placed on record as Ex. A/1. THE Secretary of the respondent No. 1 prepared a circulation note on 4. 11. 1987 and the same was sent for necessary action to the Member, Regional Transport Authority who on 7. 11. 1987 ordered that the application for grant of non-temporary stage carriage permits filed by the petitioner corporation be enclosed with the said note-THEreafter the matter was put on 13. 11. 87 and on 1311. 87 counsel for the respondent No. 2 and his likes appeared and sought time to produce a copy of the writ petition which is said to have been filed by one of the existing operators of route and the respondent No. 1 adjourned the matter to 16. 11. 1987. On 16. ll. 1987 a copy of the writ petition No. 3101/1987 was filed before the RTA and the matter was adjourned for arguments on 18. 1l. 1987 and then on 10. 12. 87. On 10. 1 ?. 1987 the counsel for the respondent No. 2 and his likes produced an order of this court passed in DB Civil Writ Petition No. 3101/1987 dated 3. 12. 1987 directing the respondent No. l to consider and decide the application of the respondent No. 2 on 10. 12. 1987 fixed in the matter. THE corporation was not impleaded in this writ petition. THE respondent No. 2 despite the fact that the petitioner snbmitted an application for grant of non-temporary stage carriage permit against the renewal application of the respondent No. 2 and his likes on 27. 11. 1987 did not take a proper step for getting application of the petitioner corporation published u/s 57 (3) of the Act of 1939 for grant of a non-temporary stage carriage permit against the renewal of the respondent No. 2 and his likes. Finally by the order dated 10. 12. 1987 the respondent No. l granted a renewal in favour of the respondent No 2 for a period of five years. Notwithstanding the fact that the corporation has filed an application for grant of permit against the renewal of the respondent No. 2 Aggrieved against the order dated 10. 12. 1987, the present writ petition has been filed by the corporation challenging the aforesaid order on the ground that the order of the respondent No. 1 is invalid as the application of the petitioner was pending and that could not have been ignored without being considered. Apart from this it is submitted that the corporation has a prior claim for grant against the renewal. It is submitted that to the exclusion of the corporation an order was obtained from this court directing the RTA to dispose of the matter on 10. 12. 1987 without corporation being added as a party respondent and the respondent No. 2 obtained the order of renewal by abusing process of this court. No reply has been filed by any of the respondents. Mr. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has raised a preliminary objection that this writ petition should be dismissed on the simple ground that the impugned order dated 10-12-1987 is appealable u/s 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, therefore, this writ petition should be dismissed on the ground as the petitioner has failed to exhaust the statutory alternate remedy. In support thereof the learned counsel has invited my attention to the decision given in Sidh Karan vs. RTA, Bikaner (1), R. S. R. T. C. Jaipur vs. R. T. A. Bikaner (2) and Ismail Mohd. vs. RTA, Udaipur (3 ). It is true that the petitioner had an statutory alternate remedy and before approaching this court he should have reosrted to that remedy. But this writ petition is of 1988 and it has come up for disposal after four years, therefore, it will not be proper to dismiss this writ petition on this ground that the petitioner had an statutory alternate remedy. The rule of exhausing the statutory alternate remedy is a ruler of expediency and it is not hard and fast rule. It depends on case to case. Since the writ petition is pending here for more than four years and now at this distance of time to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of alternate remedy of appeal being available to the petitioner will not be a proper exercise of the extra-ordinary-jurisdiction, therefore, in this peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I am not inclined to uphold the preliminary objection of Mr. Maheshwari and the same is over-ruled. The next question is that whether the resolution of the RTA dt. 10. 12. 1987 is valid or not. It is true that an application was moved by the corporation on 27. 2. 1987 for grant of permit against the renewals and the RTA was cognigent of that fact as it appears from the circulation note. It is also a fact that if the application of the corporation was to have been taken into consideration then the petitioner would not have obtained a renewal as u/s 68-F (1-A) the corporation would have got the priority and even otherwise by virtue of Rajasthan Amendment u/s 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the corporation would have a prior claim for a grant of a permit, then the petitioner. The Rajasthan Amendment reads as under :- "in its application to the State of Rajasthan, after the second proviso, add the following proviso, namely- Provided further that other conditions being equal, an application for a stage carriage permit by a State Transport Undertaking as defined in S. 68a, shall be given preference over application from individual owners and co-operative societies Raj. Act 10 of 1974, S. 3. (w. e. f. , 5. 2. 1973 ). " Mr. Munshi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact the respondent No. 2 menoeuvred the consideration of his renewal application in such a manner that the corporation's application was excluded from considerate and obtained a order of this court on 3. 12. 1987 in a most innocuous manner directing the RTA to dispose of the renewal application of the petitioner when in fact the period of the petitioner's permit was to expire on 22. 2. 1988. Mr. Munshi learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has abused the process of this court. He has further submitted that resolution of RTA dt. 10. 12. 1987 is also bad because he should have considered all pending applications including that of corporation in view of ratio laid down in the case of Smt. Mithilesh Kumari Vs. STAT (4 ).
(3.) MR. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that in fact the application of the corporation was not ripe on account of corporation being not vigilent. Learned counsel submitted that if the corporation had been vigilent, their application would have been published and corporation's application would have been considered. Learned counsel has invited my attention to the decision in a case of Lallu Narain Vs. RTA, Jaipur (5), M/s Tilokchand Motichand Vs. HR Munshi, Commissioner of Sales Tax, Bombay (6) and RSRTC, Jaipur Vs. STAT Jaipur (7 ). I have considered the rival submissions of both the parties. It is true that at the time of consideration of renewal application of the respondent No. 2 on 10. 12. 87, the application of the corporation was not ripe for consideration because same was not published. But at the same time the RTA was cognigent of the fact that the application is pending. Then the matter was adjourned from time to time till it was disposed of. Till that time the application moved by the corporation dated 27. 10. 1987 for grant of non-temporary stage carnage permit was not published. Meanwhile respondent No. 2 moved a writ petition before this Court being DB Civil Writ Petition No. 1301/1987 and this court in an innocuous manner directed the RTA on 3. 121987 to decide the application of the respondent No. 2 on 10. 12. 1987. The order reads as under :- "heard. The petitioner is holder of a Non-Temporary Stage Carriage permit covering Bus No. RJL 6371 on the existing Doongarh to Bidasar via Reddy route. He submitted an application for the grant of the renewal of the said permit for a further period of five years. Alongwith him, four other persons have also applied for the renewal of their permits on the said route. Notification has also been published in the Rajasthan-gazette. The RTA was to consider the matter of the renewal of the permits on 5. 11. 87 but it was not done. The next meeting is going to take place on 10. 12. 1987. The petitioner prays that the respondents may be directed to consider the question of renewal of the permits on 10. 12. 1987. The prayer is proper. In the result, we allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's application for renewal on Doongargarh to Bidasar via Reddy route which is an existing route in Bikaner Region in its meeting which is going to take place on 10. 12. 1987 or by circulation. The writ petition shall stand disposed of accordingly". This was most innocuous order as it was not disclosed in the writ petition that any other application against the renewal has been filed by the corporation. If this fact has been brought to the notice of this court against this renewal application of the petitioner, the corporation has also filed an application for grant of non-temporary stage carriage permit and perhaps this order would not have passed by this court. The corporation was not impleaded as a party, therefore, the respondent No. 2 menoeuvred to obtain an order of this Court directing the RTA to dispose of the renewal application of the pstitioner on 10. 12. 1987 when the matter is brought before it or by circulation. The RTA had no choice but to comply with the order of this court and granted the renewal in favour of the respondent No. 2 as the application of the corporation was not ripe for consideration. This is nothing but an abuse of the process of this court. The conduct of the respondent No. 2 is highly undesirable as they have abused the process of this court and obtained an order from this court without disclosing the correct facts that the Corporation application is pending. This kind of menocuvring employed by the respondent No. 2 is a deprecable. This abuse of the process of this court cannot be permited and it has to be condemned. ;