Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1997 DIGILAW 881 (RAJ)

Tej Singh v. S. T. A. T. , Jaipur

1997-07-25

B.J.SHETHNA

body1997
Honble SHETHNA, J. – Heard the learned counsel for the parties. (2). Petitioner Tej Singh has filed this petition in his capacity as President of Bidasar-Degana Yatri Parivahan Association under Art. 226 of the Constitution and prayed that the impugned orders passed by the R.T.A., Ajmer dated 12.2.92 (Annex. 16) and the order dated 18.6.92 (Annex. 17) passed by the S.T.A. Tribunal, Jaipur be quashed and set aside. (3). This petition is labelled as a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but strictly speaking it is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Mr. Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner requested that this petition be treated as a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution and the same may be decided accordingly. Even if this petition is treated as a petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution then also after going through the impugned orders passed by the R.T.A. and S.T.A., I do not find any substance in this petition. No error much less jurisdictional error has been committed by the R.T.A. or the S.T.A.T. while passing the impugned orders at Annexures 16 and 17 which calls for the interference by this Court in exercise of its powers under Art. 227 of the Constitution. The scope of the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is very narrow and limited. As held by the Supreme Court in case of Mohd. Yunus vs. Mohd. Mustkim(1) even error of law cannot be corrected by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (4). A preliminary objection was raised regarding the maintainability of this writ petition at the instance of Shri Tej Singh in his capacity as a President of the Association by learned counsel Shri Dave for the respondent. There is lot of substance in the preliminary objection raised by Shri Dave. The appeal filed by peti- tioner Tej Singh before S.T.A.T. was also not maintainable. When the Tribunal held that the appeal filed by Tej Singh in his capacity as a President of the Association was not maintainable. The learned Tribunal rightly held that all the persons should have filed separate appeals against the order passed by R.T.A. Therefore, on this ground also, this revision deserves to be dismissed. (5). When the Tribunal held that the appeal filed by Tej Singh in his capacity as a President of the Association was not maintainable. The learned Tribunal rightly held that all the persons should have filed separate appeals against the order passed by R.T.A. Therefore, on this ground also, this revision deserves to be dismissed. (5). On more preliminary objection was raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that the State Government has not been made as a party respondent and in absence of State of Rajasthan, no writ can be issued. There is lot of substance in this petition. The State of Rajasthan is not only a proper but a necessary party and in absence of its being a respondent, this writ petition requires to be dismissed. (6) On merits, also, the petitioner has no case. R.T.A. by his order dated 12.2.92 (Annex. 16) rejected the application filed on behalf of all the 14 operators of the petitioner association for surrendering two additional services allowed to them earlier on 24.9.90 on the ground that even after performing six return service by the 14 operators on the route in question, two vehicles still remained as spare vehicles and the reduction in six return services will not be in public interest and the same will also give impetus for clandestine operations on the route in question. The grounds assigned by the R.T.A. for rejecting the applications cannot be said to be unreasonable. In appeal, the learned Tribunal considered all the contentions raised before it and held that Rule 5.35 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 only provides surrender of permit but not reducing the trips allowed to the permit holder. (7). However, learned counsel Shri Arora relied upon the judgment of this Court Jasraj Chopra J., (as he then was) and submitted that any application made for increasing and decreasing the number of trips would certainly result in the change of the condition of the permit, therefore, the application of the operators should have been treated as an application for grant of a new permit. In support of the contention, learned counsel Shri Arora has relied upon the judgment of this Court in case of Ram Kumar vs. The Secretary, R.T.A., Bikaner and Ors.(2). That was a case of increasing and not decreasing of trips. In support of the contention, learned counsel Shri Arora has relied upon the judgment of this Court in case of Ram Kumar vs. The Secretary, R.T.A., Bikaner and Ors.(2). That was a case of increasing and not decreasing of trips. It is true that in para No. 9 of the judgment, the passing observation has been made, ``Thus it is clear that any application made for increasing or decreasing the number of trips would certainly result in the change of the condition of permit and that application shall be treated as an application for grant of a new permit. (8). At this stage, it may be stated that Sec. 80 provides for a procedure for applying for granting permits. Sub-Section 3 of Sec. 80 provides as under :– ``Sec. 80 (3) 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, or in the case of a stage carriage permit by increasing the number of trips above the specified maximum or by the variation, extension or curtailment of the route or routes or the area specified in the permit shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit : Provides that it shall not be necessary so to treat an application made by the holder of stage carriage permit who provides the only service on any route to increase the frequency of the service so provided without any increase in the number of vehicles : Provided further that- (i) in the case of variation, the termini shall not be altered and the distance covered by the variation shall not exceed twenty-four kilometers: (ii) in the case of extension, the distance covered by extension shall not exceed twenty four kilometers from the termini. and any such variation or extension within such limits shall be made only after the transport authority is satisfied that such variation will serve the convenience of the public and that it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or extended or any part there of. rule 5.35 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 reads as under:– ``5.35. Permit - Procedure on cancellation suspension or expiry of. rule 5.35 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 reads as under:– ``5.35. Permit - Procedure on cancellation suspension or expiry of. (1) The holder of a permit may at any time surrender the permit to the Regional Transport Authority by which it was granted and the Regional Transport Authority shall forthwith cancel any permit so surrendered. (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . (3) . . . . . . . . . . . . (9). As pointed above, neither Rule 5.35 nor Sec. 80 (3) of the Act provides that any application made for decreasing the number of trips shall be treated as an application for grant of a new permit. The observations made by this Court in Ram Kumars case (supra) are as under : ``If those trips have to be increased or decreased then that would result in the change of the condition of the permit. S. 80(3) of the Act provides that application to vary the conditions of any permit, other than a temporary permit, by the inclusion of 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 specified maximum or by the variation, extension or cur- tailment of the route or routes or the area specified in the permit shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit. (10). If the matter was regarding decreasing trips before this Court in Ram Kumars case and this Court held in favour of the petitioner then certainly I had to refer the matter to the larger Bench because Sec. 83 does not provide the same. However, as stated earlier, it appears to be a passing observation made in Ram Kumars case regarding decreasing the number of trips. Therefore, there is no reason for this Court to refer the matter to the larger Bench. (11). Before parting with the case, I must state that I have dealt with all the submissions raised by learned counsel on merits also though I was of the opinion that this petition was required to be dismissed on the preliminary objections raised by learned counsel Shri Dave for the respondents. (12). In view of what has been stated above, this petition fails and is dismissed. (12). In view of what has been stated above, this petition fails and is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Stay granted earlier on stay application stands vacated.