JUDGMENT :

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

1. In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, lawyers have been advised to refrain from coming to the Courts.

2. This writ petition has been preferred claiming the following relief:

"a. The impugned order passed by Member, State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur dated 16.05.2019 (Annex. 6) in appeal no. A58/19 may kindly be quashed and set aside."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that per the sanctioned stage carriage permit in question, the vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-13-PA-5021, Model 2014 was to remain in currency only for a period of five years i.e. from 13.07.2016 to 12.07.2021.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments:

(a) S.V. Sivaswami Servai v. Hafez Motor Transport (Firm) & Ors. AIR 1991 SC 911

(b) B.R. Baliga v. Town Municipal Council, Udupi AIR 1996 Karnataka 85

(c) Rikhi Ram and Ors. v. The State of Haryana and Ors. AIR 1976 P&H 196.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submits that the present writ petition is not maintainable, since the petitioner is not an aggrieved person in the present case, and therefore, the petitioner did not have any locus standi to approach this Court, while raising the present grievance, under the writ jurisdiction.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the petitioner has not submitted any application for grant of permit on the Bikaner-Sri Ganganagar link route, and has in fact submitted an application for the grant of permit on Bikaner - Suratgarh route only.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that the petitioner had filed a revision petition before the learned State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur (for short, 'S.T.A.T.') against the order dated 14.06.2016 passed by the Secretary, State Transport Authority, Rajasthan, Jaipur, whereby the permit was granted to the respondent No. 4 and one Dilip Singh, in relation to Bikaner-Sriganganagar link route. However, as per learned counsel, the said revision petition was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 11.10.2018. Learned counsel also submits that thereafter, the petitioner did not pursue the case any further, despite the permit being granted in favour of a third party.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in his rejoinder arguments, submits that the petitioner was not made party to the appeal wherein the impugned order dated 16.05.2019 came to be passed, and thus, he had filed an application in the said appeal for the purpose of being impleaded as a party, which was accepted by the learned S.T.A.T.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter, draws the attention of this Court towards Section 68 sub-sections (3) & (4), of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads as follows:

"68. Transport Authorities-

(1) .....

(2) ......

(3) The State Transport Authority and every Regional Transport Authority shall give effect to any directions issued under section 67 and the State Transport Authority shall, subject to such directions and save as otherwise provided by or under this Act, exercise and discharge throughout the State the following powers and functions, namely:--

(a) to co-ordinate and regulate the activities and policies of the Regional Transport Authorities, if any, of the State;

(b) to perform the duties of a Regional Transport Authority where there is no such Authority and, if it thinks fit, or if so required by a Regional Transport Authority, to perform those duties in respect of any route common to two or more regions;

(c) to settle all disputes and decide all matters on which differences of opinion arise between Regional Transport Authorities; and

(ca) Government to formulate routes for plying stage carriages;

(d) to discharge such other functions as may be prescribed.

(4) For the purpose of exercising and discharging the powers and functions specified in sub-section (3), a State Transport Authority may, subject to such con