CHOTA LAL MEHTA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a special appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance from the order dated July 13, 1979, passed in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 699 of 1979, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.

(2.) The appellant is an existing operator on Doongarpur-Sabla route via Kheda Punali, Vankoda, Baroda, Bodigama, Pindawa) route extending up to Vijawamata via Lodwal. A draft scheme under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act No. 4 of 1938 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act), was published in the Rajas-than Raj Patra dated July 26, 1976, with regard to the following four routes:--(i) Doongarpur-Aspur via Ganeshpur, (ii) Doongarpur- Aspur via Bankoda, (iii) Aspur-Sagwada via Punjpur, and (iv) Doongarpur- Nithawa via Bankoda Punjpur, Aspur, Sabla. As the petitioner-appellant's route was affected by the proposed scheme, he preferred objections before the Home Commissioner, Government of Rajasthan, Transport Department, Jaipur, on August 24, 1976, who forwarded the same to the Joint Legal Remembrancer No. 2, Government of Rajasthan, for consideration. The Joint Legal Remembrancer No, 2, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred to as respondent No. 2) issued a notice dated November 25, 1976, published in the Rajasthan Raj Patra dated December 2, 1976, fixing January 10, 1977, as the date for hearing the objections filed by the petitioner as well as by other objectors. But the appellant did not present himself before the respondent No. 2. The petitioner's case is that it was only on March 10, 1979, that his Manager came to know from one Shri Uda Ram, Advocate, that the objections were being heard by the Joint Legal Remembrancer No. 2 and thereupon he made an application (copy marked Annexure 4) on March 16, 1979, before the respondent No. 2 for granting him time to produce evidence. This application was rejected by respondent No. 2 by an order dated March 19, 1979 (Annexure 5).

(3.) Aggrieved by the order of respondent No. 2, rejecting the appellant's application, the appellant filed the writ petition on two grounds, namely, (i) that Rule 6 (2) of the Rajasthan Road Transport Service (Development) Rules, 1965, (hereinafter called the Rules), which provides for publication of notice in Official Gazette is ultra vires the provisions of Section 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 193d, and (ii) that the impugned order by respondent No. 2 rejecting the appellant's prayer for grant of opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his objections is illegal and void. The learned single Judge rejected both these contentions and dismissed the writ petition.