G.M. LODHA, J.—These two writ petitions relate to the grant or refusal of the permit under the provisions of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Act by the Regional Transport Authority for a route which admittedly is in Bikaner Division. It is common ground that the routes in both these writ petitions are in Bikaner Division, and the Bikaner Division falls within the jurisdiction of the seat of the High Court at Jodhpur.

2. Mr. Mehta has raised a preliminary objection that since the matter relates to Bikaner Division, the writ petitions cannot be entertained at Jaipur. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the revisional order was passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, and, therefore, this Court has got jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition.

3. Mr. Sharma has relied upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Nasruddin vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal (1). Mr. Mehta has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Ram Rakh Vyas vs. The Union of India (2), in which validity of the notification dated 23-12-76 and the explanation added to it by the then Chief Justice Shri V.P. Tyagi was considered and after taking into consideration the decision of Nasruddins case, the explanation as well as the original notification was declared to be valid.

4. The short point which has been debated before me relates to the question whether if the original order is of an area falling within the jurisdiction of the area covered by the seat of the High Court at Jodhpur. Only on account of appellate or revisional order having been passed at Jaipur, the writ petition can be filed at Jaipur challenging that appellate or revisional order.

5. A short reply to the above debate was given by the then Chief Justice Mr. V.P. Tyagi, by adding the explanation to notification dated 23-12-76 on 12-1-77 extracted in para 3 and 4 of Ram Rakh Vyass judgment, and which reads as under :—

"A writ case shall be deemed to arise in the district where the cause of action for issuing the first order pertaining to that case passed by a Court, tribunal or authority has arisen irrespective of the district in which the appeal or revision from that order is heard and irrespective also of the fact whether or not there has been any modification or reversal of the order in appeal or revision."

6. It was made clear in order to remove all doubts and difficulties that a writ case shall be deemed to arise in the district where the original cause of action for issuing that order pertaining to that case passed by a court, tribunal or authority has arisen irrespective of the district in which the appeal or revision from that order is heard and also of the fact whether or not there has been any modification or reversal of the order in appeal or revision.

7. However, Mr. Sharma submits that this explanation is invalid and unconstitutional in view of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Nasruddins case. Relying upon the observations contained in paras 36 and 37 Mr. Sharma submits that cause of action in an application under Art.226 of the Constitution should be the expression, as is commonly understood, and if the cause of action arose because of the appellate order or revisional order, which came to be passed at or in an area of Jaipur jurisdiction, the fact that the original order was passed at a place outside that area would not oust the jurisdiction of Jaipur. In that case, the controversy was between Lucknow and Allahabad. The Honble Supreme Court on a discussion of the implications and meaning of the Phrase cause of action decided that if partly cause of action arises in one area and partly outside the specified area, the litigant will have the choice to institute proceedings either at Allahabad or Lucknow.

8. On a careful consideration of the various facts of the controversy raised before me, I am of the opinion that after the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Ram Rakh Vyas v. The Union of India(supra), the controversy is no long

Click Here to Read the rest of this document