Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2805 (RAJ)

Nihal Singh v. S. T. A. T.

2005-10-25

S.N.JHA, Y.R.MEENA

body2005
Judgment 1. This appeal is directed against the order of learned dated, 03.08.2005 in Civil Writ Petition No. 2511/2000 disposing of the writ petition of the appellant with an observation that he may submit fresh application for grant of Inter State Permit on the Bhadra Hisar via Balsamand route. 2. The short facts of the case that the appellant made an application for grant of Inter State Permit for the aforesaid route which was rejected by the State Transport Authority on the ground that the vacancy was not available. The appellant preferred appeal before the State Transport Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation. The submission of the Counsel is that the State Authority wrongly recorded finding about non-availability of vacancy. In this connection, he referred the order of the appellate Tribunal dated 10.05.2000 in the case of Dharam Singh vs. State Transport Authority, Bikaner. He submitted that delay in similar appeals was condoned by the appellate Tribunal but in the case of the appellant, a different order was passed. It is also stated that in a similar cases, a learned Single Judge of this Court remitted the matter back to the appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration. Counsel submitted that it is a fit case in the facts and circumstances that the matter is remitted to the appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration. 3. We are of the view that notwithstanding the question as to whether the vacancy for the aforesaid route was available in the year 1998 or not, the case of the appellant for grant of permit can be considered only subject to availability of vacancy as on date. By judicial order, we cannot create a vacancy by cancelling the permit granted in favour of another person or otherwise. The proper course as already observed by the learned Single Judge, is to submit fresh application for grant of permit. The order impugned, in our opinion, does not warrant any modification or interference. 4. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 5. It goes without saying that if and when the appellant files any application for grant of permit, the same shall be considered in accordance with law.