PRAKASH TATIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) THESE two writ petitions, S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1098/2004 and 1165/2004 have been filed by Hukam Singh and Bhagwan Das respectively. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the facts of both the cases are identical, though the vehicles involved are different but question of facts and law of one petition will sufficiently represent the correct factual aspect of the other case and, therefore, both the petitions may be decided together. The facts of the case of Bhagwan Das, which are identical to the facts of the case of Hukam Singh will be sufficient to decide these two writ petitions, therefore, the facts of the case of Bhagwan Das are that a Bus No. DL -1P -0860 was originally registered in Kullu Manali, Himachal Pradesh. The seating capacity as per dimensions and specifications, was 54 persons including the driver and conductor seats. The registration certificate for the vehicles in question was issued by the Vehicle Registration Authority under the Motor Vehicles Act where the seating capacity for the vehicle has been mentioned for 54 in total. The vehicle was brought to Delhi where a provisional registration number was given to the vehicle as DS -141B -0860. The petitioner Bhagwan Das purchased the said vehicle from one Banwarilal of Kullu Transport Company on 23rd June, 1992 at Delhi. The vehicle after purchase brought into the State of Rajasthan under a temporary permit from the Secretary, State Transport Authority, Delhi. This permit was issued showing seating capacity as 36 (2 x 2) seats. The petitioner submitted an application before the RTA, Jodhpur for grant of non -temporary stage carriage permit for Thaiyad -Mohangarh route. The RTA granted a non -stage carriage permit on 2.7.1992 in favour of the petitioner on Thaiyad -Mohangarh route, which was later a extended upto Jaisalmer. On complaint of one Shri Gopal Singh, the Motor Vehicles Sub -Inspector, RTA, Jodhpur issued a notice to the petitioner for cancellation of permit. The petitioner filed reply stating that seating capacity of the vehicle in question was only 36 (2 x 2) seats and not 54 seats. The RTA, Jodhpur by order dated 25th June, 1993 cancelled the permit granted in favour of the petitioner for the route Thaiyad -Mohangarh extended upto Jaisalmer. The RTA, Jodhpur further ordered that tax for the remaining 18 seats may be recovered from the petitioner and he may be prosecuted for making alteration in the permit.
(3.) THE petitioner preferred appeal against the order OT the RTA, Jodhpur, which was allowed by the appellate authority, STAT by order dated 4th September, 1993 who set aside the order of the RTA. It appears that petitioner submitted an application before the concerned authority for issuing registration certificate of the vehicle in Rajasthan and he produced the order of STAT dated 4th September, 1993 before the said authority. The petitioner when received the registration certificate on 20th October, 1993, he found that in spite of the decision of STAT, Rajasthan, Jaipur the capacity of the vehicle was shown 54 instead of 36. Therefore, petitioner preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5637/1993 before this Court and sought direction against the first respondent, i.e., District Transport Officer to correct and amend the registration certificate of the vehicle in question providing the seating capacity of the vehicle as 36 (2 x 2) instead of 54.;