V.P. Tyagi, Ag. C.J. - (1.) THIS special appeal by Vidhya Sagar is directed against the judgment of the learned Judge of this Court dated 7th August, 1972. The appellant held non temporary stage carriage permit of a route known as 'Nohar Bhadra' route. He applied to the Regional Transport Authority to extend his route upto Dabri. The other permit -holders of the route also made similar applications; but the Regional Transport Authority dismissed the applications of all the existing operators, including the appellant on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to extend the rouse to Dabri as the distance to be covered upto Dabri was more than 24 kilometers. An appeal was filed by the appellant before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was accepted and the route of the appellant was extended upto Dabri. One of the existing operators Bhag Chand, who had not filed any objection against the application made by Vidhya Sagar, directly came to this Court, and preferred a writ petition mainly on the ground that the Regional Transport Authority, and the State Transport Appellate Tribunal had no jurisdiction under Clause (xxi) of Section 48(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act to extend the permit for a distance which exceeded 24 kilometers, and therefore, the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal must be quashed, the learned Single Judge accepted the writ petition of Bhagchand, and quashed the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. It is against this judgement that Vidhya Sagar has preferred this appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance.
(2.) THE main ground on the basis of which the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge has been challenged is that the learned Judge has not correctly appreciated the import of Clause (xxi) of Section 48(3) of the Act. According to Mr. Vyas appearing in behalf of the appellant, the extension of the route was ordered by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal under Section 57(8) of the Act, and, therefore, the limitations imposed by Clause (xxi) of Section 48(3) on the powers of the Regional Transport Authority do not have any operation on the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority, or the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. In this connection, reliance was pieced by the learned Counsel on the authority of the Supreme Court, namely Sri Ram Service Ltd. v. : [1968]2SCR14 and MPSRT Corpn. v. : AIR1974MP136 . In order to appreciate the contention raised by the appellant, it will be appropriate to reproduce the relevant portions of Section 48(3)(xxi), and Section 57(8) of the Act: 48(3) The Regional Transport Authority, if it decides to grant a stage carriage permit, may grant the permit for a service of stage carriages of a specified description or for one of more particular stage carriages, and may, subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, attach to the permit any one or more of the following conditions, namely: (xxi) that the Regional Transport Authority may, after giving notice of not lees than one month. (a) vary the conditions of the permit; (b) attach to the permit further conditions. Provided that the conditions specified in pursuance of Clause (i) shall not be varied so as to alter the distance covered by the original route by more than 24 kilometers, and any variation within such limits shall be made only after the Regional Transport Authority is satisfied that such variation will serve the public convenience and that it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or any part thereof. Section 57(8) An application to vary the conditions of any permit other than a temporary permit by the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area or by the variation, extension or curtailment of the route or routes or area specified in the permit or in the case of a stage carriage permit by increasing the number of services above the specified maximum, or in the case of a contract carriage permit by increasing the number of vehicles covered by the permit shall be treated as an application for grant of a new permit.
(3.) CLAUSE (xxi) of Section 48(3) was introduced in the Motor Vehicles Act by the Amending Act No. 56 of 1969 This clause limits the power of the Regional Transport Authority for the extension of the route of the existing permit. According to this clause the Regional Transport Authority can extend the route only upto 24 km. The question is, whether this limitation on the power of the Regional Transport Authority imposed by Clause (xxi) of Section 48(3) of the Act shall also be applicable when the application of the existing operator for the extension of his route, is being dealt with by the Regional Transport Authority under Section 57(8) of the Act.;