JUDGMENT

DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. - This civil review petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the writ petitioner, with the following prayer:-

"1. Therefore, it is very humbly and respectfully that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to review petition may kindly be allowed and the order dtd. 17/1/2022 may very kindly be reviewed / recall / reconsidered to impart the true justice.

2. Grant such other and further relief as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case be granted."

2. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that the petitioner is a private transport operator and applicant to the State Government Scheme, as notified vide Notification No. P.9(671) Tr/RTA/Mu/2001/17226 dtd. 2/9/2015, whereby private operators were to be permitted to ply their vehicles on hire or award, subject to the number of vehicles and trips limited by the State Government on such conditions as may be imposed by the State Transport Authority. And that, in pursuance of the same, the said authority under the relevant provision of law i.e. Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990, invited applications for grant of stage carriage permits on the notified routes.

2.1 The petitioner has filed three applications for three different notified routes with a single chassis No. MAT412012 FD506611 Model 2015.

3. It was the case of the petitioner before this Court that the petitioner was not given any prior intimation by the concerned authority, before which, it granted requisite permits to him for the Bikaner-Churu route, and that in the absence of a specific provision of law barring the concerned authority from issuing multiple permits in favour of a single individual/association of persons, his applications ought to have been considered by the concerned authority.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in support of the aforementioned submissions, certain judgments were sought to be produced before this Court, but due to some inadvertent error, the same could not be done, and hence, this review petition has been preferred. The judgments that the petitioner sought to be kept for consideration before this Court at the time of decision of the writ petition are :

(a) Narendra Kumar v. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan and Ors. (Civil Writ (CW) No. 2860/2010, decided by this Hon’ble Court on 3/11/2016;

(b) Sohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition NO. 4434/2000, decided by this Hon’ble Court on 7/2/2001) and;

(c) Rishi Kumar v. S.T.A.T. and Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 1068/1998, decided by a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court on 5/2/2003).

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions so made on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that the order dtd. 17/1/2022 passed by this Court, review whereof is being sought in the present petition, has been passed after taking into due consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the present case and the material placed on record.

6. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar.

7. This Court, on a perusal of the judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner, finds that they do not apply to the factual matrix of the present case and therefore do not render any assistance to the case of the petitioner.

8. This Court observes that in the aforementioned order 17/1/2022, a clear finding was arrived at, after looking into the overall facts and circumstances of the present case as well as the material placed on record, being that although the petitioner made three separate applications before the concerned authority seeking grant of permits, the petitioner submitted a single chassis number in all the said three applications, and hence, was granted only one permit for the same.

9. This C