A.P.SEN, J. - (1.) THESE two writ petitions directed against the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan Jaipur dated 5 -7 -1976, raise common questions and, therefore they are disposed of by this common order.
(2.) THE Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur, by it resolution dated 1 -10 -1974, Ex. P/1, granted stage carriage permits to the applicants on route Kankrauli -Marwar Jn via Soniana and Madri. The respondents No. 5 to 24, who are existing operators over portions of the said route, in their joint representation under Section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, had objected to the grant The route Udaipur Bhilwara via Madri is a notified route for exclusive operation by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, vide map, Ex. P/2. In revision, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') by its order dated 15 -5 -1975, Ex. P/3, held that the grant of permits to the applicants on the route was contrary to Section 68 FF of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, The Tribunal, after an inspection of the spot, found that there was no 'Kutcha' route in existence between Kankrauli and Madri via Soniana, nor could any such route be brought into existence without unavoidable expenditure. It, therefore, held that the grant of permit on the route in question, would in fact overlap the notified route Udaipur Bhilwara via Kankrauli over 9 Kms. It observed: At one stage of the proceedings, it was submitted on behalf of R.T.A. that the new route will overlap the notified route only 4 km. which falls within the Municipal limit of Kankroli and from thereafter there will be a diversion by kutcha route via Soniana -Shambupura upto Madri. As such it contended that the route in question will not overlap the notified route beyond the Municipal limit. At the request of the parties, I have personally inspected the site. After the inspection on the site, there remains no dispute whatsoever that there is no Kutcha route via Soniana -Shambhpura nor such route can be opened without unavoidable expenses and inconvenience. There remains thus no, doubt that the new route will overlap 9 km, between Kankrauli and Madu, which is even admitted by the R.T.A. in the impugned resolution. After adverting to the provisions of Section 68 FF (1 -D) and Section 68 FF, the Tribunal further observed: I he provisions of both 68 -F (1 -D) and 68 FF obviously bars the grant of permits overlapping any portion of the draft scheme or the notified scheme except to the extent which is covered by the provisions to those sub -sections. XXX XXX XXX XXXA bare perusal of the said provisions makes, it very clear that the R.T.A. cannot grant a permit covering a notified route or position thereof It, however, rejected the revision preferred by the respondents Nos. 3 to 24 observing that a distinction had to be drawn between opening of the route and fixing of the scope thereon and granting of permits on a route a portion of which over laps notified route.
(3.) IN view of the finding of the Tribunal that no stage carriage permits can be granted on the route Kankroli Mai war Jn in as much 'as' it overlaps the approved scheme on the route Udaipur -Bhilwara via Madii for 9 kms. Between Kankroli and Madri, having regard to the mandatory provisions of Chapter IV A of the Act, the Regional Transport Authority, by its resolution dated 1.7.1975, Ex. p/4, bifurcated the route Kankroli -Marwar Jn via Soni ana, Madri into two routes, viz, (i) route Kankroli -Madri, which overlaps the notified route and (ii) Madri -Marwar Jn.;