Sukhdev Ram vs Raj. State Road Transport Cor
2021 Latest Caselaw 8619 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3887/2021

Sukhdev Ram S/o Shri Nimbaram Choudhary, Aged About 58 Years, R/o Post - Gajsinghpura Via Asop, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Raj. State Road Transport Cor., Parivahan Bhawan, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur - Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director.

2. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Bhawan, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur - Through Its Executive Director Traffic.

3. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Raika Bagh Station Road, Jodhpur Through Its Chief Manager.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. V.L.S. Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Suniel Purohit



                      JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                  Judgment

30/03/2021

1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has

essentially challenged the order dated 24.12.2020, whereby his

representation in relation to his transfer has been rejected by the

respondent - Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for

short "the Corporation").

2. The precise facts relevant for the present purposes are that

vide order dated 15.10.2020, the petitioner, a Conductor in RSRTC

was transferred from Jodhpur to Bhilwara.

(2 of 5) [CW-3887/2021]

3. Being aggrieved of the said transfer order, the petitioner

preferred a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.11070/2020, which came to be disposed of on 09.11.2020 with

a direction to respondents to decide petitioner's representation.

4. The petitioner filed a representation on 14.11.2020 with the

respondent - Corporation, which came to be rejected vide order

dated 24.12.2020. Petitioner has preferred the present writ

petition, calling in question, the order dated 24.12.2020, so also

the transfer order dated 15.10.2020.

5. It was argued by Mr. V.L.S. Rajpurohit, learned counsel for

the petitioner that admittedly 3 passengers were found without

ticket during the inspection, when the petitioner was discharging

his duties as a Conductor on 11.09.2020.

6. Mr. Rajpurohit argued that on the date of inspection i.e.

11.09.2020, there were total 31 passengers and according to

circular dated 14.06.2019, petitioner could not be transferred, as

number of passengers found without ticket (3 passengers) were

less than 10% of the total passengers.

7. Mr. Suniel Purohit, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent - Corporation raised a preliminary objection that the

fact that petitioner's transfer was illegal as per circular dated

14.06.2019 was raised by the petitioner in a writ petition, which

was subsequently filed by him (S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.13336/2020) and the same had already been dismissed by this

Court on 17.12.2020, as barred by principles of res judicata.

8. While maintaining that instant writ petition is also not

maintainable on the principles of res judicata, it was argued that

petitioner had not even disclosed the factum of filing the above

(3 of 5) [CW-3887/2021]

writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13336/2020). He argued

that present petition deserves to be dismissed not only on the

ground of res judicata but also on the ground of non-disclosure -

as the petitioner has deliberately not disclosed vital facts.

9. It was also highlighted by Mr. Purohit that in furtherance of

the decision dated 09.11.2020 of this Court in petitioner's earlier

writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11070/2020), a detailed

representation dated 14.11.2020 was filed, in which every

possible ground was taken, except the ground that number of

passengers found without ticket were less than 10%. He

emphasised that impugned order dated 24.12.2020 cannot be

called in question on the ground, which has never been canvassed

in the representation.

10. It was also argued by Mr. Purohit that petitioner was

transferred way back on 15.10.2020 and since then, petitioner has

been absenting himself and that too without moving any

application for leave. He added that such employees are not

entitled to claim equitable relief, that too with respect to transfer.

11. Heard.

12. A perusal of the Annex.R-1 leaves no manner of doubt that

petitioner's second writ petition was dismissed by this Court on

the ground of res judicata. Present writ petition too, is hit by the

principles of res judicata.

13. A perusal of the order dated 17.12.2020 shows that the

ground, which is being canvassed by the petitioner in the present

writ petition that the passengers found without ticket were less

than 10%, was raised by the petitioner in his earlier writ petition.

(4 of 5) [CW-3887/2021]

After noticing this argument, this Court had rejected petitioner's

writ petition.

14. While deciding petitioner's writ petition on 17.12.2020, this

Court inadvertently observed that total number of passengers (in

para No.3) were 24. True, it is that the same ought to have been

inscribed as 31. But the fact remains that the petitioner's second

writ petition was dismissed on the ground of res judicata.

15. Yet again, the petitioner has preferred a writ petition on

identical ground. The same is also liable to be dismissed on the

ground of res judicata.

16. That apart, petitioner had not even disclosed the fact of filing

second writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13336/2020), while

preferring the present writ petition. Such concealment, in the

opinion of this Court, is, all the more serious.

17. Ostensibly aggrieved by the order dated 24.12.2020,

petitioner has challenged his transfer order, claiming that it is a

fresh cause of action.

18. A perusal of the order dated 24.12.2020, so also his

representation dated 14.11.2020 shows that the petitioner has not

at all taken the ground that number of passengers shown to be

without ticket were less than 10% and thus in light of circular

dated 14.06.2019, the petitioner could not have been transferred.

19. Since, no argument based on circular aforesaid was raised by

the petitioner in the representation, petitioner cannot be

permitted to raise such plea in a writ of certiorary.

20. A simple look at the order dated 15.10.2020 shows that a

clear reference of circular dated 14.06.2019 has been made. The

circular dated 14.06.2019 provides for transfer of a Conductor, if

(5 of 5) [CW-3887/2021]

the number of passengers found without ticket are more than

10%. Hence, the ground which has been raised by the petitioner,

was very much available to him, even at the first stage.

21. Be that as it may.

22. Having regard to overall facts and circumstances, as noticed

above, this Court does not find it to be a fit case warranting

interference in its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction, considering

petitioner's conduct, who has filed successive writ petitions for the

same relief on one ground or the other which were already

available to him.

23. That apart, petitioner's conduct that he has not even applied

for leave and has remained absent, disentitles him from any

equitable relief.

24. Petition in hands deserves to be dealt with by iron hands.

The same is, thus, dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/-. The cost

would be recovered from petitioner's salary or other emoluments.

25. Stay petition also stands dismissed accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 29-Ramesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)