Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mool Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 27 April, 2022
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Farjand Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1080/2019
Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Rameshwar Lal, Aged About 50 Years, R/o
Mukha Ka Bas, Tehsil Malsisar, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.).
----Appellant
Versus
1. Secretary, State Transport Authority, Rajasthan,
Parivahan Bhawan, Sahkar Marg, Jaipur.
2. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Sikar.
3. Abdul Rashid S/o Hakim Khan, R/o Pithusar, Distt.
Jhunjhunu (Raj.).
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 526/2019
Mool Singh S/o Shri Prem Singh, Aged About 66 Years, Sri
Doongar Garh, Dist. Bikaner.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Transport Commissioner,
Govt. Of Rajasthan, Parivahan Bhawan, Sahakar Marg,
Jaipur.
2. Secretary, State Transport Authority, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
Privahan Bhawan, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur.
3. Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner Region, Bikaner.
4. Shri Kalyan Singh S/o Shri Vishal Singh, Ward No. 11,
Chhattargarh, Dist. Bikaner.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 927/2019
Mool Singh S/o Shri Prem Singh, Aged About 66 Years, R/o Sri
Doongar Garh, Dist. Bikaner.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Transport Commissioner,
Govt. Of Rajasthan, Parivahan Bhawan, Sahakar Marg,
Jaipur.
2. Secretary, State Transport Authority, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
Parivahan Bhawan, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur.
3. Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner Region, Bikaner.
4. Dashmesh Transport Company, R/o N27, Ridhi Sidhi, 2-
Nd, Shri Ganga Nagar.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 28/04/2022 at 08:52:34 PM)
(2 of 9) [SAW-1080/2019]
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13059/2019
Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Rameshwar Lal, Aged About 50 Years, R/o
Mukha Ka Bas, Tehsil Malsisar, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.), Vichal
Owner RJ-18-PB-1375.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Secretary, State Transport Authority, Rajasthan,
Parivahan Bhawan, Sahkar Marg, Jaipur.
2. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Sikar.
3. Abdul Rashid S/o Hakim Khan,, Caste Musalman R/o
Pithusar Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bharat Vyas, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Deendayal Purohit.
Mr. B.L. Tiwari.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.S. Rajawat.
Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
JUDGMENT
Judgment pronounced on ::: 27/04/2022
Judgment reserved on ::: 06/04/2022
BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE MEHTA, J.)
1. These special appeals and writ petition involve common
controversy relating to inclusion of routes beyond 24 Kms. in
existing state carriage permits and hence, the same have been
heard and are being decided together by this order.
D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1080/2019 has been preferred
by the appellant Anil Kumar being aggrieved by the rejection of
his interim relief (stay application) by the learned Single Judge of
this Court by order dated 02.08.2019 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.9667/2019 at Jaipur Bench [Now registered as Writ Petition
No.13059/2019 before this Court]. The said Single Bench writ
(3 of 9) [SAW-1080/2019]
petition has also been tagged with the instant bunch and hence,
the same is also being decided by this order.
D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) Nos.526/2019 and 927/2019 have
been filed by Shri Mool Singh with almost identical prayers for
assailing the Judgment dated 30.01.2019 passed by the leaned
Single Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
Nos.9584/2018 and 9604/2018 filed by the appellant writ
petitioner Mool Singh.
2. Briefly stated background facts necessary for disposal of the
appeals and the writ petition are noted herein below:
The appellants writ petitioners Mool Singh and Shri Anil
Kumar are private bus operators plying buses on the strength of
State Carriage Permits granted to them for designated routes. A
modified Scheme was introduced by the State Transport Authority
in the year 2015 and applications were invited for inclusion of new
routes in the specified routes covered by existing permits. The
applications filed by the respective applicants were allowed by the
State Transport Authority and the inclusions as prayed for were
permitted. By way of inclusion, the existing permit routes of the
petitioner Anil Kumar as well as the private respondents
impleaded in the writ petitions filed by Shri Mool Singh and the
route of Shri Mool Singh himself were extended to distances
beyond 24 Kms. which is the bone of contention between the
parties before this Court. The learned Single Bench, accepted the
writ petitions filed by Shri Mool Singh and directed that the length
of the original route under the permit could not be exceeded
beyond 24 Kms. through inclusion under the modified scheme as
the plain language of second proviso to Section 80(3) of the Motor
(4 of 9) [SAW-1080/2019]
Vehicles Act prohibits such extension/inclusion. As a consequence,
not only were the extensions granted in favour of the private
respondents were quashed, a similar order passed by the State
Transport Authority extending the permit of the second writ
petitioner Mool Singh himself beyond the permissible limits (as per
proviso to Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act) was also
quashed.
Anil Kumar was having a State Carriage Permit on the route
"Bikaner to Ratangarh", and was granted extension of 88 Kms. till
Tamkor by way of inclusion in the original State Carriage Permit.
Such extension was challenged by Shri Abdul Rashid by filing an
appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal which was
allowed and the extended route permit of the petitioner Anil
Kumar was quashed by order dated 17.05.2019. The said order
was challenged by Anil Kumar by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.9667/2019 before the Rajasthan High Court, Bench at Jaipur.
The learned Single Bench at Jaipur Bench rejected the interim stay
application of the petitioner by order dated 02.08.2019 which is
assailed by Shri Anil Kumar in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ)
No.1080/2019 (No.1222/2019 before Rajasthan High Court Bench
at Jaipur).
3. Shri Bharat Vyas, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri
Deendayal Purohit, Advocate representing Shri Anil Kumar,
vehemently and fervently urged that the view taken by the
learned Single Bench while deciding the writ petitions of Gopal
Purohit and Mool Singh, is absolutely illegal and dehors the
provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. Shri Vyas urged that the
Transport Department, invited applications from the aspiring
(5 of 9) [SAW-1080/2019]
permit holders for extension/ inclusion in routes and existing
schemes were modified vide Notification dated 29.05.2015. In this
notification, there was no such indication that the extension/
inclusion would not exceed beyond 24 Kms. The petitioner Anil
Kumar applied for extension of his existing route from Bikaner to
Ratangarh till Tamkor and the State Transport Authority, after
inviting objections, accepted the same vide order dated
04.01.2017 and the termini Tamkor was included in the route
permit granted to the petitioner which worked out to an extension
of 88 Kms. The respondent No.3 Abdul Rashid filed a highly
belated appeal in the STAT against the extension of route permit
granted to the petitioner Anil Kumar by order dated 04.01.2017. A
pertinent objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner Anil
Kumar before the STAT that the appeal could not be entertained
as it was hopelessly time barred. But without adverting to this
pertinent legal objection of the petitioner, the limitation was
condoned in an arbitrary manner and the STAT reviewed its earlier
order and cancelled the extension/inclusion of route granted in
favour of the petitioner Anil Kumar, by order dated 17.05.2019
which is grossly illegal.
Shri Bharat Vyas, further contended that Section 80(3) of the
Motor Vehicles Act has to be read in two parts. The first part does
not govern the length of the newly included route. The operation
of the proviso has to be restricted only to cases of variations and
not in cases of inclusion.
Shri Vyas urged that from a harmonious construction of
Sections 100, 103(4) with Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it
is manifest that the view taken by the learned Single Bench in
(6 of 9) [SAW-1080/2019]
Judgment dated 30.01.2019 does not lay down the correct legal
proposition and as such, the same deserves to be reversed.
4. Shri B.L. Tiwari, learned counsel representing the appellant
writ petitioner Mool Singh in Appeals Nos.526/2019 and
927/2019, urged that the learned Single Bench was absolutely
unjustified in curtailing the extended route permit granted to the
petitioner Mool Singh who had approached the Court in a bonafide
manner to question the illegal extensions granted to the private
respondents and as such, there was no justification to cancel the
extended route permit of the petitioner which was not under
challenge. The learned Single Bench, committed gross error
apparent on the face of the record while directing curtailment of
the route permit of the writ petitioner which was not called into
question and hence, the direction given by the learned Single
Bench to this extent in the order dated 30.01.2019 is absolutely
illegal.
4. Shri Sunil Beniwal, learned AAG, supported the view taken
by learned Single Bench and sought affirmation of the order dated
30.01.2019 passed by the learned Single Bench.
5. Shri R.S. Rajawat, learned counsel representing the private
respondents, vehemently and fervently urged that the language of
the second proviso to Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act
leaves no room for doubt that neither any inclusion nor any
variation in the route is permissible beyond 24 Kms. and hence,
he urged that the hyper-technical argument advanced on behalf of
the appellant Anil Kumar that the appeal preferred by the private
(7 of 9) [SAW-1080/2019]
respondent before the STAT was time barred, would not espouse
or substantiate the claim of the permit holders who had been
granted extension of permit which takes their termini beyond 24
Kms. by grossly flouting the statutory provision. On these
grounds, Shri Rajawat implored the Court to dismiss the appeals
as well as the writ petition.
6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced at bar and, have gone through the order
passed by the learned Single Bench; the order passed by the STAT
in the appeal filed by Abdul Rashid and the relevant statutory
provisions.
7. We are of the firm view that the arguments advanced by Shri
Bharat Vyas questioning the correctness of the view taken by the
learned Single Bench in Judgment dated 30.01.2019, lacks merit.
Ex-facie, on a bare reading of the statutory provision i.e. second
proviso to Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, it becomes
clear that the proviso governs all purported extensions/variations
in the specified routes. The proviso mandates that in case of
variation, the termini shall not be altered and the distance covered
by the variation shall not exceed 24 Kms. A plain reading of the
first part of the proviso would indicate that in case, State Carriage
permit holder has a valid permit for operating from Point A to
Point B then the route can be diverted without altering the termini
i.e. point B. In such a situation, the variation would be restricted
to 24 Kms. without altering the initial stop and the termini under
the original permit. In the second situation, which deals with
extension, it shall not exceed 24 Kms. from the termini. This
(8 of 9) [SAW-1080/2019]
would imply that the route can be extended to a maximum
distance of 24 Kms. from the Point No.B which was the original
termini point approved under the permit. There is no reason for us
to accept the argument of Shri Vyas that this proviso has to be
read in isolation and that sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the
Motor Vehicles Act itself permits inclusion of a new route or an
altered route without it being governed by the proviso. Such
interpretation would amount doing violence with the statute and is
unacceptable.
8. As a consequence of the discussion made herein above, we
are of the firm opinion that the plea put-forth in the writ petition
(13059/2019) filed by Shri Anil Kumar for assailing the order
dated 17.05.2019 passed by the STAT is untenable and the writ
petition is not fit to be accepted and is consequently rejected as
being devoid of merit. Resultantly, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ)
No.1080/2019, which has been preferred for assailing the
rejection of the interim relief application in the said writ petition,
also fails and is dismissed.
Regarding the appeals (D.B. Special Appeal (Writ)
Nos.526/2019 and 927/2019) preferred by Shri Mool Singh
wherein challenge is given to the direction passed by the learned
Single Bench in the writ petition of Shri Mool Singh quashing the
extension of route granted to the writ petitioner on the ground
that the same exceeds the mandatory outer limit of 24 Kms. as
per second proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, the said direction of the learned Single Bench is
absolutely justified because had the extended route permit issued
to Mool Singh been sustained, it would amount to clear violation of
the statutory provision and the interpretation thereof made by the
(9 of 9) [SAW-1080/2019]
learned Single Bench in the writ petitions and would also cause
unjust discrimination amongst similarly situated persons.
Consequently, the appeals preferred by Shri Mool Singh also
fail and are hereby rejected.
9. No order as to cost.
10. A copy of this order be placed in each file.
(FARJAND ALI),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
85-Tikam/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
