Honble M.C. JAIN, J. — The above noted special appeals and special appeals mentioned in the enclosed schedule are against the common order dated February 7, 1991 and subsequent orders passed on different dates in other writ petitions on the basis of this common order. This common order is reported as Chandmal v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal (1). By this order, the learned Single Judge has held that the pre-emptory conditions including model condition of vehicles which are contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the new Act) and Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 (herein after called the New Rules) shall stand automatically set aside.

2. Relevant facts may be summarised thus. Certain petitioner-respondents were existing operators and they applied for the renewal of their non-temporary stage carriage permits under which they were plying their vehicles. Other petitioner-respondents applied for non-temporary stage carriage permit for the first time after coming into force of the New Act. Existing permits were renewed and new permits were granted by the Regional Transport Authorities imposing pre-emptory condition for replacing their vehicles by vehicles of prescribed model on or before certain date failing which the grant/renewal of permits will automatically stand cancelled. Their revisions were dismissed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. Thereafter, the petitioner-respondents filed the writ petitions challenging the imposition of said pre-emptory condition regard ing the model. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned-Single Judge held that the resolution No. 1/91 dated January 3, 1991 issued by the State Transport Authority, Jaipur regarding the model condition was not published as required under the proviso of clause (x) of sub-section (2) of Section 72 of the New Act and as such said condition could not be imposed before the expiry of two years of its-publication and accordingly allowed all the writ petitions by his impugned orders.

3. The learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the appellants, in all the special appeals contended as follows.

(i) Prior to coming into force of the New Rules, Rule 84 A existed in the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1951 (hereinafter called the Old Rules) dealing with the model conditions. Similarly, prior to the resolution No. 1/91 dated January 3, 1991, quoted in extenso in the impugned common order of the learned Single Judge (1991(1) RLR 627 = AIR 1992 Rajasthan 95), (supra), similar resolutions were earlier passed regarding model conditions. The Old Rules continued after the coming into force of the New Act under the saving provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 217 of the New Act till the New Rules came into force on July 16, 1990. The previous resolutions/orders passed by the State Transport Authority under Rule 84A of the Old Rules regarding model condition also continued to exist after the coming into force of the New Rules by virtue of the saving provisions contained in sub-rule (2) of Rule 12.38 of the New Rules till the said resolution No. 1/91 dated January, 3 1991 was passed. Neither Rule 84A of the Old Rules nor Rule 5.10 of the New Rules required/requires the publication of any such order/resolution of State Transport Authority. He relied upon M/s Gurcharan Singh Baldeo Singh v. Yashwant Singh (2).

(ii) The learned Single Judge has seriously erred to hold that clause (x) of sub-section (2) of Section 72 of the New Act relates to model condition also. This clause deals with the type of vehicle and body condition and not with the model condition. He relied upon Subash Chandra v. State of U.P. (3) and Ishar vs. State of Rajasthan (4).

(iii) Chapter VII of the New Rules dealing with the construction, equipment and maintenance of the motor vehicles has no reference about model or manufacturing date. Rule 7.26 of the New Rules specifically deals with the body construction and requires that t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document