Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 699 (RAJ)

Bhanwara Ram v. State Of Rajasthan

2023-03-20

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2023
JUDGMENT : (Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.) The lawyers are abstaining from the work, due to strike. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: (1) That the respondent no.3 State Transport Authority, Jaipur may very kindly be directed to forthwith cancel 5 additional services granted to the respondent no.4 on Bikaner-Nokha Via Desnokh notified route no.203 vide order dated 7.11.2017 (Annex. 5) passed by the State Transport Authority, Jaipur. (2) That 5 additional services sanctioned in the permit of the respondent no.4 on Bikaner-Nokha via Desnokh notified route no. 203 vide order dated 07.11.2017 (Annex. 5) may very kindly be forthwith cancelled. (3) Any other order which this court thinks, just and proper may be passed in favour of the petitioner. (4) Cost of the writ petition may also kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner". 3. As the pleaded facts and the record would reveal, the State Government, while de-nationalizing all the notified routes, in the best interest of the public at large, proposed to allow the private operators to operate their vehicles on the notified schemes, and for that purpose, a Notification dated 01.10.2014 came to be published in the Rajasthan Gazette, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, proposing to modify all the schemes. 3.1 After receiving and considering the objections submitted by all the stake-holders, including the State Transport Undertaking, the State Government made the modifications in all the schemes vide Notification dated 29.05.2015 permitting the private operators to pay for hire or reward stage carriages on the routes specified in the concerned scheme(s), and thereafter, the State Government, vide Notification dated 02.09.2015 (Annex-1) issued a direction to the State Transport Authority, Rajasthan, Jaipur, for limiting the number of vehicles and number of services on such routes of the notified schemes, as mentioned in the chart (running from Serial No.1 to 476) incorporated in the said Notification. 3.2 The petitioner was granted a permit, under the aforesaid Notification dated 02.09.2015, on Bikaner-Nokha (via Deshnok) notified route No.203, duly sanctioned under Chapter V of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, while the respondent no. 3.2 The petitioner was granted a permit, under the aforesaid Notification dated 02.09.2015, on Bikaner-Nokha (via Deshnok) notified route No.203, duly sanctioned under Chapter V of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, while the respondent no. 4 was granted the permit on Bikaner-Nokha (via Desnokh) notified route No. 203 by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority Bikaner vide order dated 29.01.2016 (Annex-2) to operate one single service on the said route; in compliance of the said order, the respondent No.4 was also issued stage carriage permit on 12.07.2016, which was valid upto 11.07.2021 for 5 single service, on route No. 203. 3.3 Thereafter, the State Government, vide Notification dated 31.10.2017 (Annex-4), increased the single services on Bikaner- Nokha (via Desnokh) notified route No. 203 from 3 single services to that of 18 single services. The respondent no.4 submitted an application for grant of 5 additional services in his permit on the said Bikaner-Nokha (via Desnokh) route, and the State Transport Authority, Jaipur vide order dated 07.11.2017 (Annex-5), granted the same. 3.4 Subsequently, the State Government, vide Notification dated 23.09.2019 (Annex-6), again modified the number of permits and services and fixed the scope of 3 permits to provide 3 single service on the notified route No. 203 Bikaner-Nokha (via Desnokh). The petitioner is aggrieved with the continued allowance of the 5 additional services sanctioned in respect of the permit of the respondent no. 4 by the State Transport Authority, as the respondent's route substantially overlaps the petitioner's route. 4. Mr. Bhanwara Ram petitioner in person submitted that the State Government, vide the aforementioned Notification dated 23.09.2019, has fixed the number of permits and number of services as 3 permits to operate 3 single services on the Bikaner- Nokha (via Desnokh notified) route No. 203, and a further direction was issued not to allow any operator to operate more permits and more services, than fixed under the aforementioned notification dated 23.09.2019. 4.1 The petitioner in person further submitted that the 5 additional services were sanctioned in respect of the permit of the respondent no.4 under the notification dated 31.10.2017 by which the single services on the said route were increased from 3 single services to 18 single single services, and once the State Government, vide the aforementioned Notification dated 23.09.2019, had fixed the scope of 3 permits and 3 single services on the route in question, then the State Transport Authority ought to have cancelled those 5 additional services of respondent no.4. 4.2 In addition, it was submitted that the State Government is under a legal obligation to forthwith cancel the 5 additional services sanctioned in the permit of the respondent no. 4, and thus, the said 5 additional services being operated by the respondent No.4 on the route in question is wholly illegal and contrary to the notification dated 23.09.2019. The petitioner in person, thus berated the inaction on the part of the State Transport Authority and asserted the same being wholly illegal, arbitrary and invalid. 4.3 The petitioner in person asserted that the Notification dated 02.09.2015 has been issued by the State Government with the object to limit the number of vehicles and number of services on any notified route where private operators have been allowed to operate by fixing the scope of 3 permits and 3 single services, and thus, the Notification dated 31.10.2017 cannot be sustained. 4.4 In support of his submissions, the petitioner present in person relied upon the judgement rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Gopal Purohit v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ No. 3461/2018 alongwith other connected matters, decided on 30.01.2019), which was allowed the petition, while quashing the orders impugned therein passed by the SRT/RTA in granting inclusion/extension of the routes in favour of the privates respondents therein, beyond the permissible limits as provided by the second proviso to sub-section (3) of section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 4.4.1. Therefore, as per the petitioner in person, the extension of route cannot be more than 24 kms., and thus, the impugned action of the official respondents herein is unsustainable in the eye of law. 5. 4.4.1. Therefore, as per the petitioner in person, the extension of route cannot be more than 24 kms., and thus, the impugned action of the official respondents herein is unsustainable in the eye of law. 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents opposed the aforesaid submissions made by the petitioner in person, and submitted that on account of bona fide mistake, it was erroneously informed to the Headquarter by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner, that on route no.203, 3 permits with 3 single services are operating, and on account of such bona fide mistake, it was indicated in the notification dated 23.09.2019 that on the said route, there are 3 permits with 3 single services. 5.1 However, as per learned Additional Advocate General, thereafter, the Secretary, RTA, Bikaner, vide letter dated 01.07.2021, had already requested the Secretary STA, Jaipur for amendment in the said notification, and to redetermine the scope on the said route as 3 permits with 18 single services. 6. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that presently, on the aforementioned route 3 permits with 18 single services are operating, as per the Rules in vogue, and accordingly the respondent no. 4 was granted 5 additional services, in accordance therewith, and thus, the official respondents were justified in taking the impugned action. 7. Learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that the judgement rendered by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Gopal Purohit (supra) is clearly distinguishable from the factual matrix of this case, and thus, the same cannot apply to the present case. 8. Heard the petitioner present in person as well as learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the respondents, and perused the record of the case, alongwith judgement cited at the Bar. 9. This Court finds that the State Government vide notification dated 02.09.2015 issued a direction to the State Transport Authority, Rajasthan, Jaipur, for limiting the number of vehicles and number of services on such routes of the notified schemes, as mentioned in the chart (running from Serial No.1 to 476) incorporated in the said Notification. 9. This Court finds that the State Government vide notification dated 02.09.2015 issued a direction to the State Transport Authority, Rajasthan, Jaipur, for limiting the number of vehicles and number of services on such routes of the notified schemes, as mentioned in the chart (running from Serial No.1 to 476) incorporated in the said Notification. Thereafter, the respondent no.4 came to be granted a permit to operate one single service on the route in question vide order 29.01.2016 passed by the Secretary Regional Transport, Bikaner; and subsequently, the validity of the permit of the respondent no.4 was extended upto 11.07.2021 and the service was extended to 5 single services, in addition, pertaining to the aforementioned route. The respondent-authorities vide order dated 23.09.2019 modified the number of permits and services, as informed by the learned Additional Advocate General. 10. This Court further finds that the respondent-authorities themselves admitted that the modification order dated 23.09.2019 is a bona fide mistake on the part of the concerned authority, who vide letter dated 01.07.2021, had requested the Secretary, State Transport Authority, Jaipur to redetermine services on the aforementioned route. 11. This Courts also finds that the judgement rendered in the case of Gopal Purohit (Supra) dealt with the extension of the route covered by permit granted beyond the permissible limit under sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988; while in the present case, the issue is pertaining to fixation of the permits and modification of services on the route in question. Therefore, the judgement rendered in Gopal Purohit (Supra) is not applicable in the present case. 12. This Court further finds that the respondent-authorities being competent to change the number of services on any route for the benefit of the public at large. Thus, the decision to give additional services to a person, lies within the powers and jurisdiction of the appropriate authority. 13. In light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the present petitioner. 14. Consequently, the present petition are dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.