S.K.MAL LODHA, J. - (1.) THESE six appeals under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1959 are directed against the order dated April 14, 1981 of the learned single Judge by which he dismissed six writ petitions.
(2.) AS these appeals were heard together and common questions are involved, we consider it proper to dispose them of by a common judgment. The facts leading to filing of these writ petitions by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur (for short 'the Corporation') have been stated in detail in the judgment rendered in Bharat Transport Cooperative Society Ltd v. State of Rajasthan and Other, (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 74 of 1981) and three other special appeals, in which the Corporation is respondent No. 4. These appeals were heard alongwith the aforesaid appeals. Suffice it to state that the Corporation filed writ petitions against a composite order dated September 10, 1980 of the State Transport Appelate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur (here in after referred to be as 'the STAT' ) , by which the Resolution Annexure - 3 dated July 29, 1980 of the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner (R.T.A ) granting permits to the Corporation and refusing renewal to the contesting respondents (bus -operators) who were existing permit holders was reversed. By resolution Annexure dated July 29, 1980, R.T.A. considered the comparative merits of the twelve permits holders including the contesting respondents (bus -operators) vis a -vis that of the Corporation in the matter of granting further renewal of the twelve permit holders or in their place to grant fresh permits to the Corporation against the remaining twelve unfilled vacancies in which the permit holders wen allowed renewal of their perm is for the period from November 19 1978 to November 18, 1976 under the orders of this Court. The R.T.A. alse considered the comparative merits of the two fresh applicants viz, Jagir Singh and Mani Ram. By its order dated July 3, 1979, the R.T.A. rejected all the twelve renewal applications of the permit -holders including the contesting respondents and also two applications filed by Jagirsingh and Maniram and instead allowed twelve more permits to the Corporation. The contesting respondents and other permit holders filed twelve appeals before the STAT The STAT, amongst others, allowed six appeals and observed as follows: The vehicles of the other six appellants are of 1970 or 71 Models except that of Kundanlal Shiv Shanker, which is of 1968 model. This vehicle is not below prescribed model for purpose of renewal. These six vehicles are lower in model than the vehicle of the Corporation, which are 1980 models, but when the route of Haunman -garh -Abhore is not a rationalised route, then in order to make the Corp ration ply efficient services, they require some sort of competition, which can provide some sort of competition, which can be provided by private operate . There is a scope of 24 permits on this route and if private operator are allowed to ply six vehicles alongwith the 18 permits of the Corporation then the public would benefit as the healthy competition would result in the efficient services without any set back to the service of the Corporation. Recently, the RSRTC has come in for severe criticism from different quarters on account of its inefficient services and considering this factor, it cannot be allowed to have a monopoly of services on this nonnat onalised route merely because the Corporation has higher model vehicles. The Corporation filed six writ petitions as aforesaid questioning the correctness of the part of the order Annexure - -4 dated September 10, 1980 of the STAT.
(3.) THE learned single Judge by his order dated April 14,1981 dismissel the writ petitions. It will be useful here to refer the following findings of the learned single Judge: In view of the above, it cannot be said that this finding of the Tribunal was based on absence of evidence or extraneous consideration, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution' in the Corporation can afford to have big fleet of vehicles, by which they can provide sufficient services on all routes then transport authorities should not have any difficulty in giving preference to the Corporation, even on routes which are not nationalised. How ever, as the present state of affairs exist, it is obvious that the criticism of the Corporation made in several judgments of the Transport Authorities is justified. It lacks resources and still it volunteers to oust the private operators on routes, which are not natioalised, by making a tall offer of putting 1980 models. The jugglery of showing a list of vehicles which the Corporation had got, by using it on all and sundry routes, cannot be allowed to oust the private bus operators, who are providing genuine and reasonable facilities. If the Corporation wants to oust all private bus operators on routes, which are not nationalised, why should there be delay in nationalising these routes also? Conversely, if the Corporation cannot nationalise them and further cannot afford a' big fleet of vehicles, it is difficult to appreciate why it should be over jealous (?) and enthusiastic to monopolise all the routes? After all the 'Bus service' is meant for public convenience and not for operators of Corporation. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that though in a given case, the Corporation can be allowed to have monopoly if it has got proper facilities to provide good service to people, but merely by tasting the bogey of social control and / or preferential claim of the Corporation, it cannot displace and oust the private bus operators on unnationalised routes. Since I have found that the criticism of the Tribunal against the Corporation is justified and in that context permitting the private bus operators to have competition with the Corporation on these routes would result in providing better facilities to the traveling public, I am of the opinion that the judgment of the Tribunal is justified both, on facts and in law. It may be mentioned that the learned Judge in our opinion was right whan he observed that in view of Section 47(1 -H) of the Act, Corporation is entitled to preference on the fulfillment of the conditions mentioned in the proviso appended there to. The learned single Judge was also right in holding that the Corporation can be allowed to have monopoly. earned Counsel for the bus operators aced reliance on Kondala Roa v. An Pra, S. R. T . Corporation : [1961]1SCR642 and Sri Ram Vilas v. Chandrashekharan : [1964]5SCR869 In Kondala Rao's AIR 1961 SC 82, it was observed as follows: I here can be no legal objection to a phased programme in the nationalization of transport services in a State or a district or to the framing of more than one scheme for a district, where the Govt. make it clear that each scheme would be implemented in its entirity commencing from different dates.;