Honble A.K. MATHUR, J.—This writ petition and the Writ petitions mentioned in the Schedule A appended to this order are disposed of by this common order as they involve similar question of law.

2. For the convenient disposal of all these writ petitions, the facts given in Chand Mal Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal Rajasthan are taken into consideration.

3. The petitioner is an existing operator of Nimbahera-Bhadsora route on which he holds a non-temporary stage carriage permit valid upto 27. 5 .1995 under which he is plying his vehicle and in providing services on the said route on the strength of the above permit. The petitioner before the grant of the above permit under the orders of the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur Region, Udaipur dated 24.5.1990 submitted an application for grant of a non-temporary stage carriage permit on his vehicle RSY 6417 of 1973 model. The Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur vide his order dated 6.10.1989 granted one non-temporary stage carriage permit to the petitioner. However, while granting the permit, the R.T.A. attached a premptory condition directing the petitioner to replace his vehicle RSY 6417 of 1973 model by a vehicle of the prescribed model on or before 31.3.1990 falling which the grant of permit to the petitioner shall automatically come to an end and cancelled. Thereafter, the model condition was further extended upto 31.8.1990.

4. However, one Sajjan Bai who is an existing operator of Chittorgarh Sanwariyaji route which overlaps the petitioners route from Nimbahera to San-wariyaji filed a revision petition before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal against the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur dated 30. 3. 1990 and in that the S.T.A.T. by his order dated 24.6.1990, dismissed the revision, and imposed a pre-emptory condition in the said order that the petitio-ner should replace his vehicle RSY 6417 of 1973 model by a vehicle of the pres-cribed model by 31.8.1990 failing which the grant made in his favour by the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur under its order dated 24. 5. 1990 shall automatically stand cancelled. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

5. The principal submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the section 72(2) (x) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 requires that the vehi-cles of a specified type fitted with body conforming to approved specifications shall be used by the permit holders. But this condition attached to a permit shall not prevent the continued use for a period of two years from the date of publica-tion of the approved specifications of any vehicle operating on that date.

6. Mr. Munshi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the Rules known as the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules 1951 were framed and were in froce and according to Rule 84-A a power was conferred on the State Transport Authority to issue any general or specific direction regarding model of vehicle. But no rules have been framed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). There-fore, the attachment of model condition cannot be enforced by the authorities.

7. Mr. Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate submitted that under the Act of 1988 the Rules known as the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules of 1990) have been framed and in that under Rules 5.10 the conditions regarding model of vehicle has been pro-vided- Rule 5.10 of the Rules of 1990 provides that a model condition can be laid down by the State Transport Authority and the State Transport Authority in exercise of this power has already passed the resolution No. 1/91 dated 3.1.1991 whereby various model conditions have been prescribed for various types of routes and various kinds of permits. Therefore, learned counsel submits that now conditions have already been specified by the State Transport Authority therefor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document