Sidhu, J. - (1.) These two appeals from the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court raise a common question as to the true meaning of the words "till the validity of the aforesaid permits" appearing in the scheme of nationalisation of passenger road transport services on the Jaipur-Bharatpur route and of similar words appearing in the similar scheme as to the Jaipur-Alwar route, both duly approved and published in accordance with the provisions of Section 68-D, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short, the Act), in the Rajasthan Gazette Extraordinary dated, December 14, 1960. The expression 'approved scheme' will hereafter be used as having reference to either or both of these schemes.
(2.) In order to appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to state a few facts here. The approved schemes which admittedly carry the force of law and which are pari materia lay down, inter alia, that:-- "(1) The State Road Transport Service shall commence to operate from the 28th January, 1961, or thereafter, (2) State Road Transport Service shall be provided on Jaipur- Bharatpur/Jaipur-Alwar route of Jaipur region or portions thereof, (3) State Road Transport Services are to be provided on the route or portions thereof mentioned in Clause (2) above. The provision of transport services otherwise than under the Scheme is prohibited. (4) No other person than the State Transport Undertaking (Rajasthan State Headways) will be permitted to provide passenger road transport services on the route or portions thereof specified in Clause (2) above. Clauses 5 and 6 of the approved scheme-which are not relevant for the present purpose may not be reproduced here. Clause 7 which consists of several sub- clauses, is important. The sub-clauses deal with existing permits and temporary permits held by private operators, at the time, the approved scheme came into force, relating to route or routes overlapping the Jaipur-Bharatpur/Jaipur-Alwar routes (hereinafter called the notified route). Sub-clause (g) relating to the Jaipur-Bharatpur route may be reproduced here:-- 7 (g) The vehicles covered by permit Nos. (1) P. St. P. 349 (2) P. St. P. 350' (3) - P. St. P. 351 and (4) P. St. P. '878 which have been granted to (1) Ft. Ram Ratan Sharma Ramlal Bharatpur (2) M/s. Hari Ram Gopaldass (3) M/s. Ramchandra Kedarmal and (4) Shri Babulal Gupta respectively on Bharatpur-Bhusawar route under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 will be allowed? to ply till the validity of the aforesaid permits but will be made ineffective to respect of the Bhartpur-Chhokervada portion of the route specified in Clause (2) above, that is to say that they will not pick up passengers from Bharatpur to Chhokervada and vice versa and from any place in between these two places in either direction." The Bharatpur-Bhusawar route was overlapping the notified route (Jaipur- Bharatpur) to the extent of 29 miles from Bharatpur to Chhokerwara. After running 29 miles on the notified route, the Bharatpur-Bhusawar route branches off from Chhokerwara from where the distance to Bhusawar is only 4 miles. When the approved scheme came into force, Babulal Gupta held permit No. P. St. P. 878 which entitled him to ply his vehicle on the Bharatpur-Bhusawar route till January 11, 1961, Babulal applied for renewal of this permit. The Regional Transport Authority (for short, the R.T.A.) rejected the application in respect of the Bharatpur-Chhokerwara sector of the notified route but allowed it for the remaining portion from Chhokerwara to Bhusawar. In appeal, the tribunal directed renewal subject to the renewed permit being made ineffective on the Bharatpur-Chhokerwara sector of the notified route as per restrictions indicated in sub-clause (g) of Clause 7 reproduced above. In compliance with the appellate order, the R.T.A. granted" renewal of this permit from 12-1-1961 to 11-1-1964. Subsequently, he granted fur- "ther renewal from 12-1-64 to 111-1967. During the period of the second renewal, Babulal Gupta transferred this .permit to Mithalal who is respondent 2 in D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 19 of 1968, which is one of the appeals, being dealt with by this judgment. Mithalal obtained the third renewal of this permit from the R.T.A. for the period from 12-1-1967 to 11-1-1970. The Rajasthan 'State Road Transport Corporation (for short, the Corporation) which had, in the meantime, succeeded the Rajasthan State Roadways as the State Transport Undertaking challenged this renewal by way of an appeal before the Tribunal, appointed under the Act, as well as through a writ petition (No. 509 of 1967) filed in this Court. The appeal was allowed to be withdrawn on the ground that it was likely to fail on a technical ground. The Corporation, however, prosecuted the writ petition which was eventually dismissed by the learned single Judge on merits vide his judgment, dated, December 5, 1967.
(3.) Turning now to the facts in the other appeal (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 20 of 1968), it relates to the notified route, Jaipur-Alwar. The Jaipur-Achrol- Partapgarh route was overlapping this notified route to the extent of 42 miles between Jaipur and Achrol. Hanuman Prashad, respondent 2 herein, held permit No. P. St. P. 909 which entitled him to ply his vehicle on the Jaipur- Achrol-Partapgarh route, even after the approved scheme came into force in respect of the notified route of Jaipur-Achrol, but he could ply only till the validity of his permit and that too subject to its being made ineffective as provided in Clause 7 of the approved scheme. He succeeded in getting this permit renewed from the R.T.A. twice, for a period of 3 years each. The R.T.A. granted a third renewal, but the same was challenged by the Corporation by way of a writ petition (No. 1850 of 1966) filed in this Court. This writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge by the same judgment whereby he dismissed the other writ petition, viz., No. 509 of 1967.;