C.K. THAKKER, J.- ALL THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN IN DB CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 662 OF 2001 AND COGNATE MATTERS BY WHICH THE DIVISION BENCH DISMISSED ALL APPEALS AND CONFIRMED THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN VARIOUS WRIT PETITIONS.

2. THE LITIGATION HAS A CHEQUERED HISTORY. BY A RECIPROCAL TRANSPORT AGREEMENT DATED 5/8-2-1968 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "THE 1968 AGREEMENT") ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND THE STATE OF HARYANA, HANUMANGARH - DABBWALI VIA SANGARIA INTER-STATE ROUTE OPENED TO TRAFFIC WITH A VIEW TO ENCOURAGE MOVEMENT OF TRANSPORT VEHICLES ON SUCH ROUTES AND TO REGULATE AND CONTROL THEIR OPERATION. THE AGREEMENT STIPULATED THAT FOUR RETURN TRIPS AND EIGHT SINGLE SERVICES WILL BE ALLOWED TO BUSES BELONGING TO THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND 13 PERMITS WILL BE GRANTED. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SAID AGREEMENT, THE RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ("RSRTC" FOR SHORT) WAS GRANTED 13 STAGE CARRIAGE PERMITS. ON 29-2-1996, THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, BIKANER ("RTA" FOR SHORT) GRANTED ADDITIONAL STAGE CARRIAGE PERMITS TO PRIVATE VEHICLE OPERATORS INCLUDING THE RESPONDENTS IN THE PRESENT APPEALS. THERE WAS A CLEAR STIPULATION ON THE PERMITS THAT THEY WERE GRANTED BEYOND THE CEILING FIXED UNDER THE 1968 AGREEMENT.

3. ON 14-7-1997, THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND THE STATE OF HARYANA ENTERED INTO A. FRESH INTER-STATE AGREEMENT (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "THE 1997 AGREEMENT") IN SUPERSESSION OF THE 1968 AGREEMENT FOR 13 PERMITS WITH 16 SINGLE TRIPS. CLAUSE 4(IV) CLARIFIED THAT ALL PREVIOUS STAGE CARRIAGE PERMITS WHICH WERE COUNTERSIGNED BY EITHER STATE BEFORE THE COMING INTO FORCE OF THE 1997 AGREEMENT SHALL REMAIN IN FORCE TILL THE VALID PERIOD OF SUCH PERMITS.

ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANTS, UNDER THE 1997 AGREEMENT, THE ROUTE WAS MADE OPEN EXCLUSIVELY FOR PRIVATE OPERATORS. IT WAS ALSO THEIR CASE THAT UNDER THE. 1968 AGREEMENT, ONLY RSRTC WAS GRANTED PERMITS WHICH WAS WITHIN THE SCOPE AND CEILING FIXED BY THAT AGREEMENT AND THE RESPONDENTS HAD NO RIGHT TO PLY VEHICLES.

4. AFTER COMING INTO FORCE OF THE 1997 AGREEMENT, SEVERAL APPLICATIONS WERE MADE BY PRIVATE VEHICLE OPERATORS FOR GRANT OF PERMITS. RTA, HOWEVER, VIDE ITS ORDERS DATED 25-4-1998 AND 18-11-1998 DECLINED TO GRANT PERMIT TO ANY APPLICANT UNDER SECTION 88 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO VACANCY IN EXISTENCE FOR THE GRANT OF SUCH PERMITS. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ORDERS PASSED BY RTA, APPEALS WERE FILED BEFORE THE STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR ("STAT" FOR SHORT) BY THE PERSONS WHOSE APPLICATIONS WERE REJECTED. THE MAIN APPEAL WAS APPEAL NO. 398 OF 1998 TITLED SOHANLAL V. RTA. STAT, VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 24-7-1999 SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY RTA AND REMITTED THE MATTER TO RTA WITH A DIRECTION TO RECONSIDER ALL THE APPLICATIONS UNDER THE 1997 AGREEMENT FOR GRANT OF 13 PERMITS WITH 16 TRIPS. AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY STAT, RSRTC FILED A WRIT PETITION IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN. A WRIT PETITION WAS ALSO FILED BY SOHANLAL. THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT PASSED AN INTERIM ORDER ON 9-9-1999 AND STAYED FURTHER PROCEEDINGS BEFORE RTA CONSEQUENT TO THE ORDER OF REMAND MADE BY STAT DIRECTING RTA TO RECONSIDER APPLICATIONS AND TO PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IT IS, HOWEVER, THE CASE OF THE APPELLANTS THAT THE ORDER OF INTERIM RELIEF GRANTED BY A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT ON 9-9-1999 WAS NOT COMMUNICATED IMMEDIATELY TO RTA AND RTA WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF ANY SUCH INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT. ACCORDINGLY, ON 16-9-1999, RTA HELD A MEETING IN WHICH THE APPELLANTS AS WELL AS THE RESPONDENTS PARTICIPATED AND THE PARTIES WERE HEARD. BY AN ORDER DATED 2-11-1999, RTA, CONSIDERING THE CASE OF THE APPELLANTS ON MERITS, WAS PLEASED TO GRANT 11 PERMITS TO THEM AND THE REMAINING TWO PERMITS WERE GRANTED IN FAVOUR OF OTHER PERSONS. ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANTS, THEY WERE NOT