Dinesh Maheswri, J. The petitioner Hanuman Ram, describing himself as resident of village Nandia Prabhawati, being holder of a driving licence to drive heavy vehicles, at present being a driver at a truck of one Chokha Ram, and allegedly sharing business with him; has submitted this writ petition with the averments about location of his village enroute Jodhpur-Bhopalgarh-Asop-Mundwa-Kuchera-Khajwana-Merta City-Pipar City-Gaguda existing amalgamated route and about the difficulties of the travelling public because of reduction of daily services by the State Road Transport Corporation on the route. According to the petitioner, one Ram Vilas, an erstwhile permit holder on Merta City to Baori route, met him on 26.02.2006 and informed that the transport services on Merta City to Baori route have deteriorated after it was notified; and now it was the turn of Jodhpur-Bhopalgarh amalgamated route (to be notified) for which a proposal has been published. The petitioner has alleged that upon enquires he came to know about publication of notification dated 12.09.2005 on the proposal regarding Jodhpur-Bhopalgarh scheme and that the Government has invited objections from the persons aggrieved within a period of thirty days from the date of publication of notification. The petitioner preferred objections, allegedly after taking legal advice, but the Secretary to the Government in Transport Department rejected such objections as incompetent by the order dated 27.03.2006(Annex.6)

2. Aggrieved, the petitioner has submitted this writ petition seeking the reliefs that Rule 6.3 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Rules, 1990 (the Rules for short), may be declared void; the notification dated 12.09.2005 and the impugned order dated 27.03.2006 may be quashed; and it be held that the petitioner is any person entitled to prefer objections under Sub-section (1) of Section 100 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act of 1988 for short).

3. It appears that objections were submitted by the petitioner before the Secretary with the submissions that Rule 6.3 of the Rules limiting the objections to be filed only by the person affected by the scheme, is contrary to Section 100(1) of the Act of 1988 which provides that objections could be submitted by any person. The learned Secretary dealt with the objections and held that there was no inconsistency in the provisions of the Rules and the Act of 1988 and the expression any person directly refers to an affected person and not a stranger. It was found that the petitioner did not submit the objections within thirty days of the date of publication of the notification and hence, the objections were rejected.

4. Mr. B.L. Maheshwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that when the provisions of the principal enactment in Section 100 of the Act of 1988 provide for maintainability of objections by any person, the provision in the Rules limiting it to be filed only by the person affected stands contrary to the Act; and to that extent the rule remains invalid. Mr. Maheshwari has referred to the provisions of Section 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (the Act of 1939 for short) and submitted that earlier there were only specific category of persons who could have submitted objections but the corresponding Section 100 of the Act of 1988 has omitted such restriction and has provided for maintainability of objections by any person and, therefore, the Rule limiting the objections only by the persons affected is invalid. Learned Counsel submitted with reference to the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anr vs. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal, AIR 1992 SC 96, that when the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, natural meaning ought to be provided and the Court cannot enlarge or limit the scope of the legislation. Learned Counsel submitted that the order dated 27.03.2006 remains void and illegal and the Respondent No. 2 has erred in rejecting the objections of the