Honble JAIN, J. — By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the order dt. 15.11.1993 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner granting one non-temporary stage carriage permit each in favour of the respondents no.2 & 3 on the Sangaria-Delhi inter-state route, so also the order of the same date in opening the said inter-state route may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(2). In brief the facts of the case as alleged by the petitioner- R.S.E.T.C. are that petitioner-Corporation has been established and constituted in the State of Rajasthan for the purpose of providing road and transport service. It is alleged that under the reciprocal transport agreement arrived at in between the State of Rajasthan and State of Haryana, the petitioner is providing transport services on the Ganganagar-Delhi via Hanumangarh, Sangaria, Dabwali, Hisar etc. It is alleged that the respondent no.2 and 3 and one Jagdish Singh submitted applications before the respondent no.l on 7.10.1993 and 21.10.1993 respectively for granting one non-temporary stage carriage permit each by opening a new inter-state route Sangaria to Delhi via Dabwali, Hisar withour mentioning therein the necessary particulars. It is alleged that a Circulation Note dt.21.10.1993 was sent by the Secretary to the R.T.A. Bikaner saying therein that the applicants have not disclosed the complete particulars of the Sangaria-Delhi route, its overlapping by any notified route and the length of the aforesaid route has also not been shown. It is also alleged that the Secretary to the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner thereafter under the Circulation Note dt.28.10.1993 stated that on 27.10.1993 all the three applicants submitted amended applications on 27.10.1993 for Sangaria-Delhi inter-state route in a length of 359 Kms. out of which a small portion in a length of 3 Kms. only lies in the State of Rajasthan and a portion in a length of 323 Kms. lies in the State of Haryana and the remaining poetion of 33 Kms. lies in Delhi of the said inter- state Sangaria - Delhi route. It is further alleged that the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner after considering the Circulation Notes, sent by the Secretary to the R.T.A. Bikaner by the order dt. 25.1.1993 decided to open the aforesaid new Sangaria-Delhi inter-state route and granted one non-temporary stage carriage permit each to the respondents no.2 and 3, however, rejected the application of Jagdish Singh for the grant of the permit without hearing the petitioner. Being aggrieved with the impugned order dt.25.11.1993 the petitioner has filed this writ petition on 24.3.1994.

(3). Notice to show cause was issued on 19.4.1994. In pursuance to the notice, the R.T.A. respondent no.l has filed reply on 8.2.1995 stating that in, view of Sahib Rams case, permit can be granted by the R.T.A. and no other operator can be said to be aggrieved person. The petitioner also filed rejoinder stating that the Rajasthan portion of the route is only 3 Kms. and the provisions of the Act do not envisage of a grant of permit on a route in a length of 3 Kms. and the Regional Transport Authority has no jurisdiction rather grossly misused its power and had acted in utter violation of the provisions of the Act, in opining the route.

(4). Mr. Maheshwari has raised preliminary objections about the maintainability of the writ petition. He has contended that the alternative remedy is available to the petitioner. He has also contended that the petitioner is not an aggrieved party. He has further contended that the petitioner has filed this writ petition at a belated stage and further that the petitioner did not object grant of permit on the route to some other persons.

(5). Mr. Munshi has urged that the impugned order being patently illegal can be very well challenged in the writ jurisdiction and alternative remedy is no bar and that the dela of four months in filing the writ petition is not fatal when the order is without jurisdiction. He has also contended that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document