GATTANI, J.—These four writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution have been filed by two sets of petitioners for getting certain order of the Joint Legal Remembrancer, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur quashed. Since the grounds raised for quashing the main order are not only common, but the same arguments have been advanced by both the parties, it shall be convenient as well as proper to decide them by one order. In order to appreciate the legal questions involved, the facts of one writ petition i.e. No. 76 of 1971 are given in details.

2. The petitioner of writ petition No. 76 of 1971 are operators on Shahpura Bijai Nagar via Gulabpura route and are plying their bus R J.E. 462 on that route. A scheme under sec. 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was published by the General Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated 13-1-1966 in respect of Ajmer—Bhilwara and Ajmer —Bhinai routes vide Annexture P/l. In this writ petition we are concerned with Ajmer—Bhilwara route only. The petitioners route from Bijainagar to Gubalpura which is a distance of about one and half miles. The petitioners, therefore, sent objections in respect of that scheme by registered post to the Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Transport Department on 1-3-1966 vide Annexture P/2. Thereafter respondent No. 2 Joint Legal Remembrancer issued a notice in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated 24-10-1966 that he would be hearing objections to the Ajmer—Bhilwara scheme on 15-12-1966. The petitioners on that day moved an application challenging the jurisdiction of the Joint Legal Remembrancer in hearing objections and explaining the delay also in the 61ing of the objections with a prayer that the objections may be treated within time. According to the petitioners the Joint Legal Remembrancer on 17-6-1967 dismissed the application of the petitioner on the ground that he had jurisdiction to proceed with the scheme, but at the same time he did not decide the question of limitation expressly and asked all the objectors in respect to that scheme to produce their evidence. In this the petitioner took that their objection was treated within time by the Joint Legal Remembrancer. Meanwhile the Supreme Court while deciding Civil Appeals No. 1381 and 1384 of 1967 on January 4, 1968 observed as follows:—

"Appointment of the Joint Legal Remembrancer to hear the objections was made under Rule 7 of the Rules framed in the year 1960 and the scheme was published pursuant to Rule 8 of Rules. If the Rules framed by the Government be deemed to have become ineffective, there was no authority competent to hear the objections and to publish the scheme."

Upon the basis of the above observations of their Lordships of the S.C. the objections again filed objectors with regard to the jurisdiction of the Joint Legal Remembrancer, which was repelled by the Joint Legal Remembrancer by his order dated 13-2-1970. Some writ petitions were filed (not by the petitioners) by some persons, who were aggrieved by the order of the Joint Legal Remembrancer dated 13-2 1970 in this Court. On 12-3-1970 this Court stayed further proceedings before the Joint Legal Remembrancer vide Annexure P/3. On 30-5-1970 the State of Rajasthan issued another notification vide Annexure P/5 appointing Joint Legal Remembrance afresh for hearing objections as a result of which the writ petitions filed against the order of the Joint Legal Remembrancer dated 13-2-1970 became infructuous and were dismissed as such by this Court on 31- 7-1970 vide Annexure P/6. By another notification dated 14-7-1970 under sec. 68.D of the Act the State of Rajasthan appointed the Dy. Legal Remembrancer also to consider various schemes published under sec 68-C of the Act vide Annexure P/7. The Joint Legal Remembrancer notified in the Rajasthan Rajpatra that he would be hearing objections in regard to Ajmer—Bhilwara route on 6 10-1970. As 6-10-1970 was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document