B.R.ARORA, J. - (1.) These three appeals raise a common question of law in the identical facts and arise out of the common judgment dated 20-4-1992 passed by the learned single Judge, by which the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petitions filed by the petitioner-appellants and, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the convenient disposal of these appeals, the facts given in D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 245 of 1992 (Mool Chand Mandot v. State of Rajasthan and others arising out of S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2186 of 1986) are taken into consideration.
(2.) Appellant Mool Chand Mandot was an existing operator on Deogarh to Badnore via Bhim-Todgarh route having non-temporary stage carriage permit in his favour. This permit of the appellant-petitioner for the route was renewed before the approval of the Scheme of Deogarh-Badnore route. A Draft Scheme under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, 'the Act') came to be published on 13-4-1979 in the Rajasthan Rajpatra for the following routes :--- (i) Bhim Deograh via Tal Lasani; (ii) Deogarh Bhim via Bagad, Tadgarh Pawatia; (iii) Bhim Tadgarh via Pawatia; and (iv) Bhim Badnore via Ajitgarh -- Lalgarh Pichola. As the petitioner-appellants' routes were affected by this Draft Scheme, therefore, they filed objections to these Schemes. The Special Secretary (Home), Rajasthan, Jaipur considered the objections raised by various operators and by his order dated 29-6-1985 refused to give approval to the Scheme Bhim-Deogarh via Tal Lasani but approved the Scheme relating to three routes, namely, (i) Deogarh-Bhim via Baggad; (ii) Bhim-Todgarh via Pawatia, and (iii) Bhim Badnore via Ajitgarh etc. The appellants, aggrieved with the approval of the Scheme on these three routes by the Special Secretary (Home) on 29-6-1985 filed writ petitions for quashing and setting aside the Draft Scheme and the approval dated 29-6-1985 and further prayed that the respondents may be restrained from notifying the aforesaid Scheme for the aforesaid routes.
(3.) The writ petition came up for admission on 1-10-1986. The Court, on that day, issued notices to the respondents to show cause why the writ petition may not be admitted. The service on all the respondents were affected and after service on the respondents, the case was listed for admission on 6-1-1987. Nobody appeared on behalf of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation but Shri B. R. Mehta, Deputy Government Advocate, appeared on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant was admitted and on the stay petition, the following order was passed. "...... Meanwhile, the non-petitioners Nos.1, 2 and 4 are restrained from taking further proceedings under Section 68-D read with Section 68-F (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act pending before the non-petitioner No. 1 State of Rajasthan pursuant to the impugned order of the Special Secretary ( Home) passed on 29-6-1985 approving the Draft Scheme vide Notification No. F(4) Plan (Jaipur) RSRTC (Yatayat) / 154, dated 13-3-1979 published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated 13-4-1979." Though the stay order was passed by the High Court on 6-1-1987 after giving notices to the respondents and in the presence of Dy. G. A. but still the State Government published the Scheme on 28-7-1987 in the Rajasthan Gazette. Aggrieved with the publication of the Scheme, the petitioner-appellants filed three more writ petitions challenging the above-noted approved Scheme. In these writ petitions, on (23)-9-1987 the following ad interim order was passed :- "Issue notice of the stay petition to the nonpetitioners returnable within three weeks. Meanwhile the operation of the impugned Notification No. P.17(5) Home-7/79, dated 10-7-1987 published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra, dated 28-7-1987 notifying the route Bheem Deogarh via 40 Miles, Tal Lasani, Deogra Bhim via Bagad Todgarh, Pawatia, Bhim Badnore via Ajitgrah, Lalpura, Pichola shall remain stayed." The respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 did not file any reply to the writ petition while the R.S.R.T.C. filed its reply and the learned single Judge, by his judgment dated 20-4-1992 dismissed the writ petitions filed by the petitioner-appellants. It is against this judgment that the appellants have filed the present appeals.;