JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that a writ of prohibition be issued against the respondents restricting them from formulating any such new route which may overlap Sikar-Losal-Danta Ramgarh-Maulasar-Ranauli-Jeen Mata-Shahpura, the existing amalgamated route, either in whole or part thereby creating new, separate and distinct route and that the respondents may be restrained from granting stage carriage permit on any part of such route and that the appointment of Shri O.P. Saharan as the sole member of all eleven Regional Transport Authorities be quashed. 2. The petitioner is an operator holding stage carriage permit on the existing route namely-Sikar-Losal-Danta Ramgarh-Maulasar-Ranauli-Jeen Mata-Shahpura which he has referred to as amalgamated route. Copy of the permit issued to the petitioner on 28.3.1996 has been placed on record. According to the petitioner, this amalgamated route has been in existence even prior to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This is composed of 9 segments viz. 1. Sikar-Losal, 2. Sikar-Losal via Sarvari, Singrawat, 3. Sikar-Molasar via Bosana-Singrawat, 4. Sikar-Shahpura via Gunato, 5. Sikar-Danta Ramgarh via Rewasa, 6. Ranauli-Danta Ramgarh via Kachor, 7. Sikar-Danta Ramgarh via Khur, 8.Sikar-Singrawat via Bhairopur-Puranpura, 9. Sikar-Danta Ramgarh via Mataji, Roopgarh. There are 41 existing operators to operate 40 services by rotation on the said amalgamated route. Section 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short-'the Act') provides for the constitution of transport authorities. Sub-section (1) of Section 68 provides that the State Government shall by notification in the official gazette constitute for the State a State Transport Authority to exercise and discharge powers and functions which are specified in sub-section (3) and shall in the like manner also constitute Regional Transport Authorities for the regions. Sub-section (2) of Section 68 of the Act provides that a State Transport Authority and every Regional Transport Authority shall consist of a Chairman who has had judicial experience or experience as an appellate or a revisional authority or as an adjudicating authority competent to pass any order or take any decision under any law and in case of a State Transport Authority, such other persons (whether officials or not) not being more than four and in the case of Regional Transport Authority, such other persons not being more than two, as the State Government may think fit to appoint. According to the petitioner, second proviso of sub-section (2) of Section 68 provides that where the State Government considered it necessary or expedient so to do, constitute the State Transport Authority or a Regional Transport Authority for any region so as to consist of only one member. Under Clause (ii) of the second proviso, the State Government has to make rules for functioning of such authorities. The State Government in exercise of the powers conferred upon it by Section 111 of the Act promulgated Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 (for short-'the Rules'). Rule 5.3 of the Rules provides for the conduct of business of Transport Authorities. The Government has divided Rajasthan into eleven regions for the purpose of constituting Regional Transport Authority (RTA) respectively known as regions of Jaipur, Alwar, Udaipur, Jodhpur, Bikaner, Kota, Ajmer, Dausa, Sikar, Chittorgarh and Pali. Contention of the petitioner is that the State Government illegally appointed one Shri O.P. Saharan, Deputy Transport Commissioner, as the sole member of all the aforesaid 11 RTAs of the State of Rajasthan and did not appoint any 1 Chairman. This appointment was notified in the gazette of the Government dated 10.1.2000. The Act was amended by Motor Vehicles Amendment Act No. 54 of 1994 and a new clause (ca) was added in sub-section 3 of Section 68 so as to provide that the Government shall formulate routes for plying stage carriages. Effect of such amendment would be that the powers of RTA to formulate routes for plying stage carriage, have been totally taken away and instead such powers have now been conferred upon and vested in the Government w.e.f. 14.11.94 with effect from the date on which the aforesaid amendment was published, the RTA has no power to formulate or open route or routes for plying stage carriage permits. The RTA illegally and in utter violation of clause (ca) of Section 68 of the Act usurped the power of the Government by formulating new routes out of the portions of the aforesaid amalgamated route of the petitioner thereby dismantling compositions of the said route and formulating such dismantled piece and portion of the route as a new route without the approval of the Government and granted separate stage carriage permit thereon. The petitioner has contended that the RTA has illegally granted seven stage carriage permits on Sikar-Danta Ramgarh via Rewasa and two permits on Sikar-Shahpura via Gunattoo portion and two permits on Ranoli-Danta Ramgarh via Kochor portion of petitioner's amalgamated route. The petitioner has cited example of one Bajrang Lai who applied for stage carriage permit on Ranoli-Danta Ramgarh via Kachor and the RTA granted permit to him. His application and copy of the permit granted to him have been placed on record. The other applicants Ram Goyal and Bhanwar Lal also applied for stage carriage permit on Sikar-Danta Ramgarh via Rewasa portion of the amalgamated route and they were also granted permits. Copies of their joint application for permit and the permit have also been placed on record. One Sanwar Mal had also applied for grant of permit on Sikar-Shahpura via Ganattoo portion on the said amalgamated route and he was also granted permit. Copy of his application as also the permit have also been placed on record. Aforesaid grant of permits was unsuccessfully challenged before the State Transport Authority (sic. Appellate) Tribunal by way of filing revision petition. It is against the backdrop of these facts that the appellant has filed the present writ petition with the prayers enumerated above. 3. I have heard Smt. Anupama Chaturvedi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Harshavardhan Nandwana, the learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State. 4. Smt. Anupama Chaturvedi, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the RTA has not been constituted in terms and the manner stipulated u/s. 68 of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. The Government is bound in law as per the sub-section (1) of section 68 of the Act to -, k7J constitute RTA for each region. Sub-section (2) of section 68 of the Act, the STA and RTAs are clearly envisaged to be multi member bodies where the appointment and existence of the Chairman is necessary. Apart from the members in the case of STA, its members can be one instead of four and in the case of RTA there has to be at least two members. This has been so provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 68. Apart from the members in the case of STA, its members can be one instead of four and in the case of RTA there has to be at least two members. This has been so provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 68. However the second proviso has carved out an exception but only with regard to "other persons" i.e. the members whose number could not be 1 instead of 4 or 2 as the case may be. The requirement of having a Chairman is however still mandatory. The exception has to be used only in exceptional circumstances and not as a matter of routine because the language of sub-section (2) of Section 68 permits this if the State Government 'consider it necessary or expedient' to do so. No such necessity or expediency exists which may justify non-appointment of the Chairman and for that matter non constitution of the whole of the RTA, nor has any such necessity or expediency disclosed in the impugned notice Annexure-3 by which a single member RTA has been constituted. Rule 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 of the Rules also mandates the constitution of STAT and RTA as multi member bodies. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the rules stipulates the formation of STA and RTA as multi member bodies. She submits that the respondents have further committed illegality by appointing Shri O.P. Saharan as the sole member acting for all the 11 RTAs. She further submitted that the single member RTA has violated the mandate of Section 68(3)(ca) by which creating new routes and granting permits on such newly created routes in utter violation of the provisions according to which the power to formulate routes for plying of stage carriages has been exclusive reserved for and conferred on the State Government and the RTAs have been totally and absolutely deprived of such powers of formulating routes. It was argued that the term 'formulate' is a very broad and wide term which includes the power to open new routes or to reformulate old ones and their portions into separate and distinct routes. Any alterations, tempering with and interaction with the existing route is so as to give new, separate or altered share to existing route would amount to new or fresh act of formulation for the plying of stage carriage. Any alterations, tempering with and interaction with the existing route is so as to give new, separate or altered share to existing route would amount to new or fresh act of formulation for the plying of stage carriage. Learned counsel submits that the term "route" has been specifically defined in sub-clause (38) of Section 2 of the Act which inter alia provides that "route" means a line of travel which specifies the highway which may be traversed by a Motor Vehicle between one terminus and another. Slicing out a portion of notified route and formulating it into separate and distinct route of its town terminus holding independent and separate permits and then confining both terminus of the portion with separate services and time tables for transversing the Motor Vehicles confining only to the starting and ending terminus of such portion would be undisputedly an act of formulation of new route as distinct and separate from existing amalgamated route. The sole member RTA has thus acted illegally and without jurisdiction. Not only formation of new routes by him but issuance of permits on such newly formulated routes is, therefore, null, void and ab initio. It was argued that grant of stage carriages adversely affecting the honogeneity, viability and economy and their timings and clash with existing time table and in totality the interest of the traveling public is also adversely affected. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of co-ordinate bench of this Court in Dharam Chand v. STAT & Ors., 1996(1) WLN 461 and argued that this Court on interpretation of Section 68(3)(ca) has taken the view that opening of new route by RTA was illegal and without jurisdiction, the said power being available to the Government. It was, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be allowed in terms of the prayer made therein. 5. Shri Harshvardhan Nandwana, the learned Deputy Government Advocate for the respondents contested the writ petition and argued that there is nothing like amalgamated routes in the Act or the Rules and nowhere this has been defined but only route having two terminus has been defined. Appointment of Shri O.P. Saharan, Dy. Transport Commissioner as the sole member of all the 11 RTA's was made keeping in view the provisions of the Act and Rules. Appointment of Shri O.P. Saharan, Dy. Transport Commissioner as the sole member of all the 11 RTA's was made keeping in view the provisions of the Act and Rules. Although it has been admitted that the powers to formulate routes for plying stage carriage have been exclusively conferred upon and vested in the State Government w.e.f. 14.11.94 by insertion of clause (ca) in Section 68(3) of the Act. However, it was clarified that routes determined prior to 14.11.94 has not in any way been disturbed which still continues in the same position as it existed. It has been asserted that whatever routes have been determined after 14.11.94, it is the State Government itself which has determined such routes. Shri O.P. Saharan, apart from Deputy Transport Commissioner, is also ex-officio Deputy Secretary to the Government in its Department of Transport and, therefore, he held the dual position. When the impugned order has been passed by him, this cannot be in any manner taken to have violated Section 68(3)(ca) of the Act. It has been submitted that the petitioner has misconstrued the meaning of the term 'amalgamated'. The word 'amalgamated' refers to determination of the route having two terminus by the State Government. Section 68 also empowers the State Government to determine new route and also to reopen the route which was closed earlier. The respondents have placed on record the copy of the map of the region indicating the plying routes on which the buses are being operated by different 40 operators. With the help of the map, it has been sought to be asserted that the RTA has not given any new route as has been contended by the petitioner and these routes were already existing. According to Section 68 of the Act, RTA can issue permits and rather he cannot refuse to issue permits. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mithilesh Garg etc., v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 443 for the purpose. It was argued that challenge to the appointment of Shri O.P. Saharan as RTA is misconceived in law, as also factually unsustainable. It is stated that Shri O.P. Saharan is now no longer working as member RTA, but he has been replaced by one Safdare Aalam who is working as member RTA. It has been asserted that now different RTA's are working for different regions. It is stated that Shri O.P. Saharan is now no longer working as member RTA, but he has been replaced by one Safdare Aalam who is working as member RTA. It has been asserted that now different RTA's are working for different regions. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 6. I have given my earnest consideration to the rival arguments and scrutinised the material on record. 7. Basically there are two contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, one is with regard to validity of the permit granted by the member RTA on route which according to the petitioner covers part of the amalgamated route on which he hold permit and second is regarding appointment of Shri O.P. Saharan as the sole member for all eleven regions. On the question of opening of route and issuance of permit, what is noticed from the permit granted to the petitioner is that Sikar-Losal-Danta Ramgarh-Maulasar- Ranauli-Jeen Mata-Shahpura, was notified as the route which the petitioner has preferred to call as `Exkikrat Marg'. It is on the basis of this that the petitioner has used the term amalgamated route. The term `route' has been defined in clause (38) of section 2 of the Act as under : 'Route' means a line of travel which specifies the highway which may be traversed by a Motor Vehicle between one terminus and another.' 8. Glance at the aforesaid definition would show that `route' means a line of travel which specifies the highway which may be traversed by a Motor Vehicle between one terminus and another. The petitioner has placed on record the permit granted to him indicating the 'Ekikrit Marg' which when translated in english means as amalgamated route i.e. Sikar-Losal-Danta Ramgarh-Maulasar-Ranauli-Jeen Mata-Shahpura. As against this, the other permits granted by the respondents which the petitioner has placed on record especially the permit granted to one Bajrang Lal on 22.6.05 indicates the route to be Ranauli to Data Ramgarh via Kachor, indicating that this is one of the routes of the amalgamated routes. 'Ekikrit Marg' can also mean unified route. As against this, the other permits granted by the respondents which the petitioner has placed on record especially the permit granted to one Bajrang Lal on 22.6.05 indicates the route to be Ranauli to Data Ramgarh via Kachor, indicating that this is one of the routes of the amalgamated routes. 'Ekikrit Marg' can also mean unified route. Whether one calls it amalgamated route or unified route, the substance of the argument is that it is covering part of the same route on which the permit is granted to the petitioner because the Rarauli to Data Ramgarh via Kachor falls within the broader route on which the permit has been granted to the petitioner. In fact, there are nine segments which are covered by this amalgamated route and, therefore, it is the basic route starting from Sikar to Shahpura which is the route notified by the respondent No. 1 within which the other portions of it are covered. Similarly, the permit jointly granted to Ram Gopal and Bhanwar Lal also indicates that it was covering the route from Sikar-Data Ramgarh via Rewasa. So is the case with regard to permit granted to one Sanwar Mal covering the portion from Sikar-Shahpura via Gunato indicating specifically that this was part of the amalgamated route i.e. Sikar-Losal-Danta Ramgarh- Maulasar-Ranauli-Jeen Mata-Shahpura. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Dharam Chand v. STAT & Ors. has taken the view that the amendment made in Section 68 of the Act whereby clause (ca) was inserted therein has been enforced w.e.f. 14.11.94, according to which only the Government of Rajasthan is authorised to formulate the routes for plying the stage carriages and RTA has no powers to open any route. The relevant observation in para 9 and 10 of the judgment are worth quoting : "9. Indisputably, clause (ca) of sub-Section (3) of Section 68 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been inserted by Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act No. 54 of 1994 which is made enforceable with effect from 14.11.94. According to newly inserted Clause (ca) of sub Section (3) of Section 68 of the said Act which is admittedly applicable in the present case, now only Government of Rajasthan can formulate the routes for plying the stage carriages and the Regional Transport Authority has not been given powers to open a new route, therefore, in the present case, resolution passed by the R.T.A. On 12.12.95 Annx. 1 to the writ petition opening a new route in question is per se illegal and without jurisdiction. 10. I am also of the opinion, that since in the present case opening of new route by the R.T.A. on 12.12.95 vide Annex. 1 to the writ petition was per se illegal and without jurisdiction, therefore, the consequential order passed by him granting permit to the petitioner on the route in question would become nullity and void ab initio. In my considered opinion opening of new route by the R.T.A. in the case on hand tantamount naked usurpation of power of the State Government by him, which is impermissible within the meaning of newly inserted clause (ca) of sub-Section (3) of Section 68 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988." 9. I see no reason not to agree with the view taken in the aforesaid judgment. When the law enunciated by this Court in Dharam Chand, supra is applied to the facts of the present case, it is evident that it is the Secretary, RTA which has granted permits to various persons which are not only in deviation from the main amalgamated route such as Sikar-Losal-Shahpura, but also its segments referred to in para 3 of the petition as also in para 3 of the additional affidavit filed by the respondents. The explanation given by the Deputy Government Advocate in the additional affidavit now filed is that the State Government has opened the same new routes vide order dated 12.8.2004 cannot validate the earlier permits illegally granted. It also cannot be accepted that since Shri O.P. Saharan was holding the post of Deputy Transport Commissioner who was also working as ex-officio Deputy Secretary to the Government and, therefore, when he issued those permits, a presumption should arise that such routes were opened by the Government because he was also holding the office of the Dy. Secretary to the Government. 10. Coming now to the second argument with regard to the illegality in the appointment of Shri O.P. Saharan as the sole member of different eleven RTAs at one go, it has been clarified by the respondents in the additional affidavit that now as on date Shri O.P. Saharan is not working as the member RTA and in his place one Shri Safdare Aalam has been appointed as member RTA and further that different eleven RTA's are now working for different regions. In view of this clarification, grievance of the petitioner on that count does not survive and, therefore, that argument cannot be accepted, although, even otherwise, when the first contention of the petitioner having been upheld, it could not be necessary to determine second contention. 11. With regard to the judgment of Mithilesh Garg, supra, cited by the learned Deputy Government Advocate, there can be no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down by the their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Issue raised therein was regulating to grant of stage carriage permit to the private operators which was intended to ensure healthy competition and eliminate corruption. Question of competence on the RTA for opening a new route with reference to powers of the State Government under Section 68(ca) was in issue therein. The said judgment, therefore, does not apply to the facts of the present case. 12. In the light of the discussion made above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned permit i.e. Annexure-5, 7 and 9 are quashed and set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.Writ petition allowed - Impugned permits quashed. *******