- (1.) ALL these three writ petitions involve common questions of law and facts, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.
(2.) FOR the convenient disposal of all these writ petitions, the facts given in the case of Prakash Chandra vs. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur and Anr. (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1044 of 1993) are taken into consideration, The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the respondents may be directed to consider and decide the applications for the grant of stage carriage permits on Chohtan to Ahmedabad via Dhanau, Bakhasar, Gandhava, Sanchore route in accordance with the provisions of rule 5. 2 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 by holding a meeting and not by circulation. It is further prayed that the respondents may be restrained from considering such applications on the impugned route by circulation till the R. T. A. meet at such time and at such place as the Chairman, R. T. A. , Jodhpur may appoint in accordance with the said rule. Chohtan to Bakhasar via Dhanau is an existing route in Banner district which is now under the regional jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur. 4 stage carriage permits were sanctioned on the said route and the petitioner is the holder of one of such stage carriage permit covering bus No. R. J. C. 4297 on the said route. Prior to the coming into force of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with effect from 1. 7. 1989 and the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1951 were in force. The procedure for grant of a stage carriage permit was prescribed under Section 57 of the Act of 1939 and Rule 78 of the Rules of 1951 provided the procedure for conduct of business of transport authority. Now, a similar rule has been incorporated in the Rules of 1990 being Rule 5. 3. Therefore, the main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that each Regional Transport Authority shall meet at such time and at such place as the Chairman may appoint within the region. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the mandate of the Rules, the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur (referred to hereinafter as 'the R. T. A. ') is required to meet at such time and at such place as the Chairman may appoint within the region and the proviso further makes it clear that the authority shall meet not less than once in each month as the State Authority directs otherwise. Mr. Maheshwari and Mr. Vyas, both the learned counsel for the petitioners have contended that the R. T. A. of the region concerned is required to meet at such time and at such place within he region and the matter cannot be processed through circulation.
(3.) MR. Munshi, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, moved an application for being impleaded as a party to the writ petitions and he was permitted to appear for the Corporation. Learned counsel submitted that according to clause (6) of Rule 5. 3, the matter can be considered by way of circulation. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the coming into force of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, now the consideration of Section 57 of the Act of 1939 are no more there. Therefore, Mr. Munshi, learned counsel for the applicant Corporation submitted that the matter can be processed by way of circulation. Mr. Munshi, learned counsel for the applicant Corporation has also submitted that rule 5. 3. is only applicable when there is a Chairman and it is not applicable when there is a single member R. T. A. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. ;