The provisions of Section 68-F (1-C) and (1-D) of the Motor Vehicles Act are not attracted to the present cases as both the terminii of the disputed route do not fall upon any of the routes or its portion of the published scheme.

Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - Section 68-F(1-C) and (1-D) - Interpretation - Permits for stage carriages - Grant of temporary permits - Conditions - Notification of scheme under Section 68-C - Effect - Distinction between 'route' and 'road' - Convenience of travelling public - Remand of cases by Transport Appellate Tribunal - Legality.
Fact of the Case:

The Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur, granted two temporary permits for three years under Section 68-F (1-C) and (1-D) of the Motor Vehicles Act to Messrs. Rajendra Singh and Brothers and Mohan Dass for the Banswara Ratanpur route. Three appeals were preferred before the Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, one by Rajasthan Transport Corporation, Udaipur, one by Satya Narayan, and one by Jagat Singh. The Tribunal accepted the appeals, set aside the permits granted to Messrs. Rajendra Singh and Brothers and Mohandass, and remanded the case back to the Regional Transport Authority with a direction to reconsider the applications of Messrs. Rajendra Singh and Brothers, Mohan Dass, Satya Narayan, and Jagat Singh and simultaneously to consider other applications also in respect of this disputed route which might be pending or which might become ripe by that time. Six writ petitions were filed challenging the impugned order of the Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:

1. The provisions of Section 68-F (1-C) and (1-D) of the Motor Vehicles Act are not attracted to the present cases as both the terminii of the disputed route do not fall upon any of the routes or its portion of the published scheme. 2. Temporary permits under Chapter IV of the Act cannot be granted on Ratanpur-Banswara route. 3. Non-temporary permits under Chapter IVA can be granted. 4. The impugned order of the Tribunal to the extent it relates to the remand of the cases is not justifiable. 5. The Tribunal could have considered the cases of appellants Satya Narayan and Jagat Singh and grantees Messrs. Rajendra Singh and Brothers and Mohandass inter se on merits and granted two permits to the two persons, who deserved the best.
Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of Section 68-F (1-C) and (1-D) of the Motor Vehicles Act are attracted to the present cases? 2. Whether temporary permits under Chapter IV of the Act can be granted on Ratanpur-Banswara route? 3. Whether non-temporary permits under Chapter IVA can be granted? 4. Whether the impugned order of the Tribunal to the extent it relates to the remand of the cases is justifiable?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of Section 68-F (1-C) and (1-D) of the Motor Vehicles Act are not attracted to the present cases as both the terminii of the disputed route do not fall upon any of the routes or its portion of the published scheme. 2. Temporary permits under Chapter IV of the Act cannot be granted on Ratanpur-Banswara route. 3. Non-temporary permits under Chapter IVA can be granted. 4. The impugned order of the Tribunal to the extent it relates to the remand of the cases is not justifiable. The Tribunal could have considered the cases of appellants Satya Narayan and Jagat Singh and grantees Messrs. Rajendra Singh and Brothers and Mohandass inter se on merits and granted two permits to the two persons, who deserved the best.
Final Decision: The writ petitions filed by Messrs. Rajendra Singh and Brothers, Mohan Dass, and Satya Narain were accepted. The writ petition filed by Rajasthan Transport Corporation, Udaipur, succeeded in part. The impugned order of the Tribunal was set aside in part, i.e., so far it relates to the remand of the case and so far as it allowed Messrs. Rajendra Singh and Brothers and Mohandass to continue plying their buses even after quashing of their permits granted by the Regional Transport Authority. The part of the impugned order holding that the Regional Transport Authority had no authority to grant temporary permits under Chapter IVA of the Act to Messrs. Rajendra Singh and Brothers and Mohandass and that non-temporary permits under Chapter IV of the Act could be granted in the present case was confirmed. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, was directed to consider the cases of Messrs. Rajendra Singh and Brothers and Mohan Dass, Shri Jagat Narain, and Shri Satya Narain on merits and take a decision in the matter of the grant of two non-temporary permits on Ratanpur Banswara route to two persons out of these four.

JUDGMENT

1. - The Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur Region, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the R.T.A.') on 24.4.1970 fixed the scope of two stage carriages with one return trip on Banswara Ratanpur via Garhi, Sagwara, Dungarpur, Kherwada and Bichiwada route (hereinafter referred to as 'the' disputed route') Before that on 9.1.1968 the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur (petitioner in writ petition No. 2260 of 1970 and hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') had published a scheme under Section 68 C of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') in respect of the following four routes:(1) Udaipur- Dungarpur via Rikhabdeo, Kherwada, (2) Udaipur-Ratanpur via Rikhabdeo, Kherwada, Bichiwara, (3) Udaipur Rikhabdeo, (4) Dungarpur-Ratanpur via Kumba, Thana, Bichipura. A few persons had already applied for the grant of non temporary permits on 'the disputed route'. These applications after getting them published as required under the law, came to be considered by 'the R.T.A.' on 28 7.1970. By its resolution of that date 'the R.T.A.' granted two temporary permits for three years under Section 68-F (1-C) and (1-D) one each to Messrs. Rajendra Singh and Brothers (petitioners in writ petitions No. 114 of 1971, 297 of 1971 and 298 of 1971) and Mohan Dass (Petitioner in writ petition No. 110 of 1971). It might be noted here that even though the applicants had applied for non-temporary permit, the permits granted were temporary in nature and that also with condition that the permits will be ineffective within three years to the extent 'the disputed route' or part of 'the disputed route' became a notified route. There was another condition also attached to the permits, but we are not concerned here with it.

2. Aggrieved by that resolution of 'the R.T.A.' three appeals were preferred before the Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the T.A.T.' one was preferred by Messrs Rajasthan Transport Corporation, Udaipur (petitioner in writ petition no. 32 of 1971) under Section 64(f) of 'the Act'; the second appeal was preferred by Satya Narayan (petitioner in writ petition No. 850 of 1971) and the third was filed by one Jagat Singh. The latter two appeals were preferred under Section 64(a) of 'the Act'.

3. 'The T.A.T.' by its impugned order dated 26-12-1970 'accepted the part' all the three appeals, set aside the permits granted to Messrs. Rajendra Singh and Brothers and Mohandass holding that 'the R.T.A.' had no jurisdiction to grant temporary permits to them. It remanded the case back to 'the R.T.A.' with a direction to reconsider the applications of Messrs. Rajendra Singh and Brothers, Mohan Dass, Satya Narayan and Jagat Singh and simultaneously to consider other applications also in respect of this disputed route which might be pending or which might become ripe by that time. While doing so 'the T.A.T.' gave a finding that 'the R.T.A.' can grant non temporary permits under Chapter IV on 'the disputed route'. At the same time it allowed Messrs. Rajendra Singh and Brothers and Mohandass to ply on their buses till the applications were considered by 'the R.T.A.' afresh.

4. Aggrieved by the impugned order of 'the T.A.T.' dated 26.12.1970 six writ petitions have been preferred. Three have been preferred by Messrs. Rajendra Singh and Brothers and the 4th by Mohan Dass. Two of the three appellants namely, Messrs Rajasthan Transport Corporation and Satya Narain have also preferred separate write petitions.

5. The seventh writ petition has been preferred by 'the Corporation' but that has been preferred against the original resolution of 'the R.T.A.' dated 28-7-1970 granting two temporary permits and in the following circumstances.

6. According to 'the Corporation' on 23.5.1970 it had submitted in application for the grant of a non-temporary permit on 'the disputed route' to 'the R.T.A.' Of course via Doongarpur only was mentioned in the application. 'The R.T.A.' while consid

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1972 Supreme(Raj) 232

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURTR.D.Gattani, J.Rajendra Singh And Brothers, Banswara - AppellantVersusThe Regional Transport Author, Udaipur Region, Udaipur and ors. - RespondentS.B. Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 114, 297, 298, 110, 8 and 32 of 1971 and 2260 of 1970.Decided On : 12-05-1972

The provisions of Section 68-F (1-C) and (1-D) of the Motor Vehicles Act are not attracted to the present cases as both the terminii of the disputed route do not fall upon any of the routes or its portion of the published scheme.

Cases Referred (4)

Login now and unlock premium legal research

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
R.D.Gattani, J.
Rajendra Singh And Brothers, Banswara - Appellant
Versus
The Regional Transport Author, Udaipur Region, Udaipur and ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 114, 297, 298, 110, 8 and 32 of 1971 and 2260 of 1970.
Decided On : 12-05-1972