Ram Kumar v. Secretary, R. T. A. , Bikaner — 1992 DIGILAW 706 (RAJ)

Honble JASRAJ CHOPRA, J.—The case of the petitioner is that he is the holder of a non-temporary stage carriage permit on Suratarhg to Chattar-garh route via Mile 80. It is a A Class route, 120 kilometers in length and exists in Bikaner Region. His permit on Bus No. 9366 is valid upto 6-9-1992. Suratgarh to Mile 80 is a route 69 kilometers in length and is a part and parcel of the route Suratgarh to Chattargarh via 80 Mile and completely overlaps it to the extent of 69 kilometers, out of the total length of 120 kms. The Regional Transport Authority has sanctioned 6 daily return services on the full length of the route and one shuttle service between Suratgarh to Mile 80. 2. It is alleged that respondents No. 3 and 4 have applied for grant of stage carriage permit on a portion of this route i.e. Suratgarh to Mile 80 and proposed a particular time-table in their applications, which reads as under: Suratgarh Mile-80 Mile 80 Suratgarh Manoj Kumar 5.00 PM 7.00 PM 8.30 AM 10.30 AM Mayadevi 4.00 PM 5.30 PM 9.00 AM 10.30 AM The applications for grant of stage carriage permit on Suratgarh to Mile 80 route by respondents No. 3 and 4 have been marked as Annexure 2 and 3 whereas the time-table sanctioned by the R.T.A. for the entire route is Annex-ture-1 dated 30-1-1992. The R.T.A. considered these applications for grant of one stage carriage permit each in favour of respondents No. 3 and 4 by providing one return service each in its meeting dated 1-8-1991. The R.T-A. vide its order Annexure-4 dated 1-8-1991 has made it emphatically clear that the conditions laid down in secs. 72 and 84 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act herein) are imposed on permit-holders. The R.T-A. vide its order Annexure-4 dated 1-8-1991 has made it emphatically clear that the conditions laid down in secs. 72 and 84 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act herein) are imposed on permit-holders. Permit was issued to respon-deat No. 3 on 3-8-1991 and the time-table which was sanctioned by the Secretary, R.T.A. was as under : Suratgarh Mile-80 Mile-80 Suratgarh 1.30 PM 3.30 PM 8.45 AM 10.45 AM Permit was also table, which was issued issued in in favour of respondent No. 4 on 8.8.1991 and the time her favour by Secretary RTA was as follows : Suratgarh 4.45 PM Mile-80 6.45 PM Mile-80 11.00 AM Suratgarh 1.00 PM Thus, it is clear that the time-tables issued by the Secretary, R.T.A. are totally different from the time-tables proposed by respondents No. 3 and 4. It appears that respondents No. 3 and 4 have not only claimed a change in the time tables through their applications dated 5.21992 but they further requested vide their application Annexure-6 that on account of the demand of the people of the locality and further on account of heavy rush due to mela and other Festivals, they want to undertake one additional service on this route. They also proposed a revised time-table in their application Annexure-6. That revised timetable alongwith one additional service was sanctioned by the Secretary R.T.A. vide his order Annexure-7 dated 6.2.1992. It is this very order, Annexure-7, which is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. It has been contended that the order Annexure-7 as regards fixing of revised time-table as also grant one addition trip is beyond the competence of the Secretary R.T.A. It is against the provisions of ss. 70, 71, 72 and 80 (2) of the Act. It is also contrary to r. 5.4(2)(e), 5.5(1), 5.5(3)(c), Form R.S. 5.4 and Form R.S.5.9 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1990). It was further contended that the Secretary, R.T.A. could only regulate the time-table so proposed by the respondents No.3 and 4, which was accepted by the R.T.A. on 1.8.1991. He could not amend, modify or vary the same. The time-table being a condition of the permit, the Secretary, R.T.A. cannot vary the same and, therefore, the order Annexure-7 passed by the Secretary, R.T.A. deserves to be quashed. 4. This writ petition was opposed by Mr. He could not amend, modify or vary the same. The time-table being a condition of the permit, the Secretary, R.T.A. cannot vary the same and, therefore, the order Annexure-7 passed by the Secretary, R.T.A. deserves to be quashed. 4. This writ petition was opposed by Mr. R.N. Munshi, the learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 3 and 4, who has filed a caveat on behalf of respondents No. 3 and 4. Without filing any reply, the matter was argued finally at the admission stage on the joint request of the parties. 5. I have heard Mr. B. L. Maheshwari and Mr. Sunil Maheshwari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. R.N. Munshi, the learned counsel for respondents No. 3 and 4 (Caveator). They have argued the matter at length, although such lengthy arguments are not required. 6. Be that as it may, it was argued by Mr. B. L. Maheshwari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that an applicant, who applies for the grant of stage carriage permit has to suggest in his application the minimum and maximum number of daily trips proposed to be provided and the time-table of the normal trips, as per s. 70(1) (c) of the Act. He has further contended that s. 71(2) of the Act provides that a Regional Transport Authority shall refuse to grant a stage carriage permit if it appears from any timetable that the provisions of this Act relating to the speed at which vehicles may be driven are likely to be contravened, and proviso to s. 71 (2) of the Act further provides that before such refusal, an opportunity shall be given to the applicant to amend the time-table so as to conform to the said provisions. It was, thus argued by Mr. B.L. Maheshwari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that before the R.T.A. sanctions a permit, he has to satisfy himself that the proposed time-table furnished by the applicant does not violate the provisions of the Act relating to the speed at which the vehicle may be driven. According to him, the provisions of s. 71(2) of the Act are mandatory in nature. 7. It is true that s. 71(2) of the Act provides for such a condition but the provisions of s. 71(2) of the Act are mandatory in character. According to him, the provisions of s. 71(2) of the Act are mandatory in nature. 7. It is true that s. 71(2) of the Act provides for such a condition but the provisions of s. 71(2) of the Act are mandatory in character. From the language of s. 71(2) of the Act, these provisions appear to be directory in nature. Even if it is treated that the provisions of s. 71(2) of the Act are mandatory in nature, they do not provide that if the time-table proposed in the permit contravenes the provisions of the Act relating to the speed, keeping in view the width, traffic and the nature of the road and vehicle plied on the route and other factors which are relevant for such a consideration, such an application for grant of stage carriage permit is not liable to be rejected out rightly. In such circumstances, an opportunity will have to be granted to such an applicant to amend his timetable so as to conform to the said provisions. There is no provision in the Act for out-right rejection of such an application for grant of stage carriage permit, if the time-table proposed in the application contravenes the provisions of the Act relating to speed at which the vehicles may be driven at a particular type of road. Moreover, no such contingency has arisen in this case. It is nobodys case that the time-table proposed in the application in any way contravenes the provisions of the Act relating to the speed and, therefore, it cannot be said that the proposal regarding time-table becomes a part & parcel of the permit. It is only a proposal made by the applicant in his application, it has to be examined by the R.T.A. or its delegate whether the time table proposed in the application should be approved or some other time-table should be provided. If it is a case of grant of a totally new route, the time-table proposed in the application can be approved provided it does not contravene the provisions of speed-limit provided by the Act but if it is a case of grant of a permit on the existing route where other vehicles are also running and their time-tables have been approved by the R.T.A. or his delegate then the R.T.A. has every power to accept or not to accept the proposed time-table. The proposed time-table does not became a condition of the permit even after the stage of modification or variation under the orders of the competent authority, its sole purpose is that the vehicles or traffic on that route may be properly monitored and guided and every sort of conflict in plying of the buses may be avoided. The mere proposal does not become a condition of the permit and the R.T.A. is not obliged to accept that. He has every authority to prescribe a time-table for the running of the buses and, therefore, the contention of Mr. B.L. Maheshwari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the time-table proposed in the application made by the permit-holder will become a condition of the permit and the R.T.A. is obliged to accept that proposal and the Secretary, R.T.A. cannot vary that proposal, cannot be accepted. 8. Mr. B.L. Maheshwari, the learned counsel appealing for the petitioner has next drawn my attention to the provisions of s.72 of the Act, which provides that subject to the provisions of s. 71, a Regional Transport Authority may on an application made to it under s.70 grant a stage carriage permit in accordance with the application or with such modification as it deems fit or refuse to grant such a permit. Thus, it is clear that a time-table proposed in the application filed under s.70 of the Act for the grant of a stage carriage permit does not become a condition of the permit, if that application is accepted by the R.T.A. although with certain modifications. Proviso to s. 72(1) of the Act further provides that no such permit shall be granted in respect of any route or area not specified in the application. 9. Mr. Maheshwari then drew my attention to the provisions of sub-s. (2) of s.74 of the Act, which provides that the Regional Transport Authority, if it decides to grant a contract carriage permit, may, subject to any rule that may be made under this Act. 9. Mr. Maheshwari then drew my attention to the provisions of sub-s. (2) of s.74 of the Act, which provides that the Regional Transport Authority, if it decides to grant a contract carriage permit, may, subject to any rule that may be made under this Act. attach to the permit any one or more of the following conditions, namely : (i) that the vehicles shall be used only in a specified area or on a specified route or routes; (ii) that except in accordance with specified conditions, no contract of hiring, other than an extension or modification of subsisting contract may be entered into outside the specified area; (iii) the maximum number of passengers and the maximum weight of luggage that may be carried on the vehicles, either generally or on specified occasions or at specified times and seasons; (iv) the conditions subject to which goods may be carried in any contract carriage in addition to or to the exclusion of passengers; (v) that, in the case of motor cabs, specified fares or rates of fares shall be charged and a copy of the fare table shall be exhibited on the vehicle; (vi) that in the case of vehicles other than motor cabs, specified rates of hiring not exceeding specified maximum shall be charged; (vii) that, in the case of motor cabs, a specified weight of passengers luggage shall be carried free of charge and that the charge, if any, for any luggage in excess thereof shall be at a specified rate; (viii) that in the case of motor cabs, a taxi-meter shall be fitted and maintained in proper working order, if prescribed; (ix) that, the Regional Transport Authority may, after giving notice of not less than one month-fa) vary the conditions of the permit; (b) attach to the permit further conditions; (x) that, the conditions of permit shall not be departed from save with the approval of the Regional Transport Authority; (xi) that, specified standards of comfort and cleanliness shall be maintained in the vehicle; (xii) that, except in the circumstances of exceptional nature, the plying of the vehicle or carrying of the passengers shall not be refused; (xiii) any other conditions which may be prescribed. He further drew our attention to sub-s. (2) of s. 72 of the Act, which provides that the Regional Transport Authority if it decides to grant a stage carriage permit, may grant the permit for a stage carriage of a specified description 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: (i) that the vehicles shall be used only in a specified area, or on a specified route or routes; (ii) that the operation of the stage carriage shall be commenced with effect from a specified date; (iii) the minimum and maximum number of daily trips to be provided in relation to any route or area generally or on specified days and occasions; (iv) that copies of the time-table of the stage carriage approved by the Regional Transport Authority shall be exhibited on the vehicle and at specified stands and halts on the route or within the area; (v) that the stage carriage shall be operated within such margins of deviation from the approved time-table as the Regional Transport Authority may from time to time specify; Thus, Sub-secs. (3) and (4) of s. 72 (2) of the Act clearly provides that a timetable for the running of the vehicle has to be approved by the R.T.A. and that has to be exhibited on the route or within the area and the vehicle and at specified stands and halts on the permit should also specify the minimum and maximum number of daily trips to be provided in relation to any route or area generally or on specified days and occasions. If those trips have to be increased or decreased than that would result in the change of the condition of the permit. S. 80(3) of the Act provides that 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 altering the route or routes or area covered by it, in the case of a stage carriage permit by increasing the number of trips above the spiciued maximum or by the variation extension or curta-ilment of the route of routes or the area specified in the pirmit shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit. Thus, it is clear that any application made for increasing or decreasing the number of trips would eertainly result in the charge of the condition of the permit and that application shall be treated as an application for grant of a new permit. 10. It was next contended that when respondents No. 3 and 4 have mentioned in their application for grant of permit that they will be doing one return service on Suratgarh to Mile 80 route than filing of application Annexure-6 before the Secretary R.T.A. is an act of fraud on the part of the petitioner.In this respect, my attention was drawn to a Division Bench decision of this Court in Vijayraj Mewara Kalal vs. STAT (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 472 of 1991, decided on March 12, 1992). That judgment has no application to the facts of the present case because it is not a case of fraud. In this case, the respondents No. 3 and 4 have applied to the Secretary, R.T.A. that keeping in view certain reasons, they want to enhance the number of trips. Thus, the respondents No. 3 and 4 have not suppressed any material facts. It was the Secretary, R.T.A. who should have treated this application Annexure-6 as a fresh application for grant of new permit and should have referred the matter to the R.T.A as provided by s. 80(3) of the Act. All necessary facts are incorporated in the application Annexure-6 and, therefore, it cannot be said that it is a case of fraud. 11. My attention was next drawn to a Division Bench decision of this Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 1419 of 1983 (Basantilal vs. STAT decided on 24..1.1984 at Jodhpur). That was a case where the question arose was whether an unsigned application can be treated to be a valid application for grant of a permit. This decision has nothing to do with the controversy involved in this case. 12. Mr. R.N. Munshi, the learned counsel appearing for the Caveator has drawn my attention to a decision of the Kerala High Court in Karthikeyan vs. R.T.A., Trichur(l). Clauses (iii) and (iv) of section 48(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 are almost in peri-materia with the provisions of Section. 72(2) (iii) and (iv) of the Act. 12. Mr. R.N. Munshi, the learned counsel appearing for the Caveator has drawn my attention to a decision of the Kerala High Court in Karthikeyan vs. R.T.A., Trichur(l). Clauses (iii) and (iv) of section 48(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 are almost in peri-materia with the provisions of Section. 72(2) (iii) and (iv) of the Act. Interpreting those provisions, Division Bench of the Kerala High Court has held that clauses (iii) and (iv) of section 48 (3) do not make the time table itself a condition of the permit. It is the exhbition of an adherence to the approved time-table, that is made a condition and not the time-table itself. Thus, it is clear from this authority that any timetable proposed in the application for grant of a stage carriage permit is not a condition of the permit, if the permit is granted in favour of such an applicant. The time-table proposed in the application can be changed by the R.T.A, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case and the route over which the permits are granted but the time-table approved by the R.T.A. has to be exhibited and that has been made a condition of the permit. This, authority fully supports the contention of Mr. R.N. Munshi, the learned counsel appearing for Caveator that making a fresh proposal in the time-table in the application does not amount to a change in the condition of the permit if that applica-tion for grant of change in the time-table is accepted by the R.T.A. 13. Mr. R.N. Munshi, the learned counsel appearing for the Caveator has next drawn my attention to the order Annexure-4 dated 1.8.1991 whereby the applications filed by respondents No. 3 and 4 for grant of permit for one trip each on Suratgarh to Mile-80 route were accepted. While accepting those applications, 7 conditions were imposed on respondents No. 3 and 4. Condition No. 5 says that the conditions contained in provisions of ss. 72 and 84 of the Act will be made conditions of the permit and condition No. 7 provides that the Secretary, R.T.A. will decide the time-table, and fare-chart etc. Thus, it is clear that the R.T.A. itself has ordered that the Secretary, R.T.A. will decide the time-table and fare-chart etc. 14. It was contended by Mr. 72 and 84 of the Act will be made conditions of the permit and condition No. 7 provides that the Secretary, R.T.A. will decide the time-table, and fare-chart etc. Thus, it is clear that the R.T.A. itself has ordered that the Secretary, R.T.A. will decide the time-table and fare-chart etc. 14. It was contended by Mr. R.N. Munshi, the learned counsel appearing for the Caveator for that r. 5.4 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 provides for delegation of powers. Clause(2) of r. 5.4 of the Rules provides that the State Transport Authority of the Regional Transport Authority may by general or special resolution delegate subject to such condition and the restrictions as it may think proper to all the powers and functions specified in sub-clauses (i) to (iii) to the Officers and authorities mentioned therein. R. 5 4 (2)(e) provides that the Secretary, State Transport Authority and Secretary/ Addl. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority can be delegated powers to approve a time table and fare chart of stage carriage under s.72 of the Act. Thus it is clear that the R.T.A. can delegate its powers to approve a time-table and fare chart of stage carriage under s. 72 of the Act to the Secretary R.T.A. In this case, the R.T.A. has delegated its powers to the Secretary, R.T.A. to approve a time-table and fare chart vide his order Annexure-4 dated 1.8.1991 and the Secretary, R.T.A. has accordingly approved the time-table for both these permit holders (respondents No. 3 and 4) vide his order Annexure-5 dated 7.8.1991. Thus, the Secretary, R T.A. has been delegated powers of the R.T.A. vide order Annexure-4 for deciding the time-table and fare chart etc. and in doing so, he can modify the proposed time-table mentioned in the application for grant of permit as per s. 72(4) of the Act, 15. Form R S.9. is a form of permit in respect of a particular stage carriage. Ciause(j) of this form provides that the vehicle shall be regularly operated on the entire Specified routes in each journey in accordance with the approved time-table except when prevented by accident, temporary un-moter-ability of route or any un-avoidable cause due to nature calamity. Thus, as per clause(j) of the permit, a vehicle can be plied on the route as per approved timetable and not in accordance with a time-table which has been proposed in the application by the permit-holder. Thus, as per clause(j) of the permit, a vehicle can be plied on the route as per approved timetable and not in accordance with a time-table which has been proposed in the application by the permit-holder. Clause (P) of this Form further provides that copies of the time table of the service or of particular stage carriage approved by the R.T.A. shall be exhibited on the vehicle and at specified stands and halts on the routes or within the area. This is the compliance of s. 72(2)(iv) of the Act. Thus, a time-table proposed in the application for grant of a stage Carriage permit does not become a condition of the permit. The time-table has to be approved by the R.T.A. The time-table can be varied keeping in view the exigencies of the route i.e. the number of permits granted, the number of vehicles that are running on the route and the number of trips or return trips, permitted by the RTA, 16. In this view of the matter, I am firmly of the veiw that the argument pf Mr, B.L. Maheshwari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that a time-table proposed in the application for grant of stage carriage permit becomes a condition of the permit, when that application is allowed, cannot be sustained and the Secretary, R.T.A. was quite competent as a delegate of the R.T.A. to approve such a time-table as regards the vehicles which are covered by the permits granted to respondents No. 3 and 4. 17. It was next argued by Mr. B.L. Maheshwari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that how many trips or return services will be operated by a particular vehicle, about which a particular route has been granted is to be decided by he R.T.A. and not by the Secretary, R.T.A. Any application for increasing number of trips will be treated as an application for grant of a new permit as per s 80 (3) of the Act. Here, no maximum trips have been prescribed by any notification by the State Govt. Here, no maximum trips have been prescribed by any notification by the State Govt. and when that has not been issued then an application for increasing the number Of trips will be an application for grant of a new permit and such an application could not have been decided by the Secretary, R T.A. because such powers have not been delegated to him under r. 5.4 of the Rules and therefore, this action of the Secretary, R.T.A. is beyond his competence. 18. Mr. R.N.Munshi, the learned counsel appearing for the Caveator has contended that when no maximum number of daily services have been mentioned in applicants permis, an application for increasing number of services could not be treated as one for varying conditions of permit so as to attract s. 5 7(8) of the Old Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which corrosponds to section 80(3) of M.V. Act 1988. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Kalusingh V. Transport Appellate Authority (2). That was a case where on a particular route, maximum services were provided and the psrmit-holders applied for increase in services not beyond that maximum limit and, therefore, it was held that even the condition laying down the maximum number of services in relation to a particular route are not attached to the applicants permit, and, therefore, the application for allowing few more trips by same vehicle cannot be treated as one for new permit. Thus, this authority has no application to the facts of the present case. 19. As stated above, vide order Annexure-4 dated 1.8.1991 the respondents No. 3 and 4 were permitted to ply their vehicles on Suratgarh to Mile 80 route for one return trip each and, therefore, their application Annexure-6 for increasing the number of trips should have been treated as an application for grant of a new permit as per s. 80(3) of the Act and it was beyond the competence of Secretary RTA to pass the order Annexure-7 dated 6.2.1992 Thus the order Annexure-7 dated 6.2.1992 passed by the Secretary, R.T.A. cannot be sustained. 20. Mr. 20. Mr. R.N. Munshi, the learned counsel appearing for the Caveator has candidly conceded that if it is found that the Secretary R.T.A. has no power to increase the number of trips then it may be taken as a concession on his part that the respondents No.3 and 4 will forego additional trips and they will abide by the condition of the permit. i.e. that they will ply their buses on this route with one return trip each. 21. It was next contended by Mr. B.L. Maheshwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that fixing of time-table affects other permit-holders of the route and, therefore, before fixing a time-table it was incumbent upon the R.T.A. or the Secretary R.T.A. to give a notice to the affected parties and thereafter he should have approved the time-table. This contention cannot be sustained. If a permit is granted to a person to ply his particular vehicle on a particular route, the R.T.A. can provisionally determine the time-table keeping in view the time-tables of other - vehicles plied on the route, which have been approved by him or his delegate and after issuing interim timetable, he will have to invite and consider the objections from the existing operators. This is what he has done vide his orders Annexurers-5 and 6. In this respect, I may place reliance on a decision of the Patna High Court in Muneshwar Pandey A. C.R.T.A., Ranchi (3), wherein it has been held that the RTA being given power to issue provisional time-table under s. 48 of the Act of 1939 pending final fixation, it has power to make interim arrangement by passing an order fixing time table expressly stating that it was provisional and objections will be invited and after considering those objections of interested parties, final order will be passed. 22. It was canvassed by Mr. R.N. Munshi, the learned counsel for the Caveator that the petitioner has come before this Court against an interim order and that should be depricated. A time-table fixed by the R.T.A. or the Secretary R.T.A. affects the rights of permit-holders, who ply their vehicles on that pirticular route, and, therefore, even if the time-table has been fixed provisionally, such an order fixing a provisional time-table cannot be said to be an inter-locutory order. In this respect, Mr. Maheshwari has drawn my attention to a decision of this Court in Zaju. In this respect, Mr. Maheshwari has drawn my attention to a decision of this Court in Zaju. V. State (4), wherein it has been held that any order of moment, which substantially affects rights of the parties cannot be called an interlocutory order still. Be that as it may, in this case, the Secretary, R.T-A. vide his order Annexure 7 has increased the number of trips. That was a composite order whereby not only the trips but also the timing of the buses have been changed and that substantially affects the rights of the parties. Moreover, such an order was beyond the competence of the Secretary, R.T.A. Thus, the petitioner has rightly come to this court to get it quashed. 23. According to Mr. R.N. Munshi, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner is not an aggrieved party and, therefore, he should not be heard. I am unable to accept this contention. The petitioner is a permit holder on the route Suratgarh to Chhatargarh via Mile-80 and this route totally covers the route of respondents No. 3 and 4 and, therefore, a person adversely affected and aggrieved by such variation has a right of appeal. He is an aggrieved party. In this respect, I may place reliance on a decision of this Court in Heeralal vs. the State of Raj (5). 24. On the strength of a decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in Mithilesh Garg V. U.O.I. (6), it was contended by Mr. R.N. Munshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner that keeping in view liberalization policy of the Govt. for grant of permits, no existing permit-holder can object to the grant of issuing fresh permits and, therefore, how could a person can object to the timings or increase of the scope of the trips. This contention cannot be sustained at all. When the increase of the trips is not within the competence of the Secretary, RTA and he has exercised his powers beyond his competence) such an order of the Secretary, RTA can be challenged by the petitioner. 25. It was next contended by Mr. R.N. Munshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of the RTA is appelable under s. 89 of the Act. 25. It was next contended by Mr. R.N. Munshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of the RTA is appelable under s. 89 of the Act. In this case, the order Annexure-7 has been passed by the Secretary, RTA and s 89 does not provide for any appeal against the order of the Secretary, ZTA and, therefore, this contention of Mr. Munshi also cannot be sustained. 26. In the result, this writ petition is allowed in part. The order Anne -ure-7 passed by the Secretary RTA is quashed. The order Annexure-5 passed by the RTA is restored back. The order Annexure-5 being a provisional order and objections have been invited against that order and, therefore, the petitioner or any other affected person will be free to file their objections as regards this order Annexurer-5 dated 7.8.91 within a period of one month from today. 27. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs of this writ petition.