Honble A.K. MATHUR, J. — Both these writ-petitions involve common question of law and facts, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. For the convenient disposal of these two writ petitions, the facts given in the case of RSRTC Vs. RTA, Bikaner in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 914/1988 are taken into consideration.

2. The brief facts which are necessary for disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner is a Corporation created under the Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to the Act of 1950). In Bikaner Region there is a route known as Dungargarh-Beedasar via Dharmas, Reddi, Bonna etc. in a length of 48 kms. and is A Class in nature. The respondent No. 2 held a non-temporary stage carriage permit covering vehicle No. RJE-3016 of 1967 model having its validity upto 222.1988. The respondent No.2 submitted an application for the renewal of his permit on 11.6.87 which came to be published by the respondent No. 1 in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dt. 20 8.1987 under Section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to the Act of 1939) for the purpose of inviting objections. The petitioner corporation published a draft scheme u/s 68-C of the Act for nationalising the above route and same was published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated 25.7.1986. The petitioner submits that a number of draft schemes u/s 68-C of the Act of 1939 for various routes were prepared and got published by the petitioner-corporation in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dt. 25.7.1986 which included this draft scheme also. One Yaduraj Singh and two others filed writ petition being SB Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1638/1986, 1640/1986 and 1941/ 1986 in the Jaipur Bench and the Jaipur Bench allowed the writ petitions and set aside the aforesaid notification. Aggrieved against this, three appeals were preferred by the corporation and the Division Bench by its judgment dated 17.12.1987 allowedall these appeals of the petitioner and set aside the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The petitioner submitted that the respondent No.2 realised that he will not be able to obtain a renewal of his permit as same cannot be refused to corporation when it makes an application u/s 68-F (1-A) of the Act of 1939. The petitioner when came to know that the respondent No. 2 & his likes are taking steps for getting renewal of their permits from the respondent No. 1 RTA by circulation, the petitioner for opposing the renewal application of the respondent No.2 and his likes moved five appiications for grant of non-temporary stage carriage permits to the RTA, Bikaner on 27.10.1987. Copy thereof has been placed on record as Ex. A/1. The Secretary of the respondent No. 1 prepared a circulation note on 4.11.1987 and the same was sent for necessary action to the Member, Regional Transport Authority who on 7.11.1987 ordered that the application for grant of non-temporary stage carriage permits filed by the petitioner corporation be enclosed with the said note-Thereafter the matter was put on 13.11.87 and on 1311.87 counsel for the respondent No. 2 and his likes appeared and sought time to produce a copy of the writ petition which is said to have been filed by one of the existing operators of route and the respondent No. 1 adjourned the matter to 16.11.1987. On 16.ll.1987 a copy of the writ petition No. 3101/1987 was filed before the RTA and the matter was adjourned for arguments on 18.1l.1987 and then on 10.12.87. On 10.1 ?. 1987 the counsel for the respondent No. 2 and his likes produced an order of this court passed in DB Civil Writ Petition No. 3101/1987 dated 3.12.1987 directing the respondent No.l to consider and decide the application of the respondent No. 2 on 10.12.1987 fixed in the matter. The corporation was not impleaded in this writ petition. The respondent No. 2 despite the fact that the petitioner snbmitted an application for grant of non-temporary stage carriage permit against the renewal application of the respondent No. 2 and hi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document