Shri Khayali Ram vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 9389 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1129/2019

Shri Khayali Ram S/o Shri Hanumana Ram, Aged About 45 Years, Sri Rampur Basti, Bikaner (Raj).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Transport Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Parivahan Bhawan, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur (Raj).

2. Secretary, State Transport Authority, Government Of Rajasthan, Parivahan Bhawan, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur (Raj).

3. Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner Region, Bikaner (Raj).

4. Shri Jagdish Prasad S/o Shri Ganesh Ram, Ward No. 10, Near Shiv Mandir, Bikaner (Raj).

                                                                ----Respondents



For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. R.K. Rathi
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Sudhir Tak, AGC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order

19/07/2022

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The present writ petition has been filed against the order

dated 5.2.2018 (Annexure-3) passed by the Secretary, S.T.A.

Rajasthan, Jaipur by which route from Nokha to Soodsar via

Somalsar, Anakhisar, Kakda, Uchsar, Jasrasar, Ladasar, Sadasar,

Naya Gao, Kuchor N, Kuchor E, Badnu, Sanwatsar in length of 95

kms. was issued in favour of respondent No.4.

(2 of 3) [CW-1129/2019]

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order

dated 5.2.2018 is in violation of sub-section (3) of Section 80 of

the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner further

submits that the controversy involved in the present case is

squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of

Gopal Purohit Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. :: S.B. Civil

Writ Petition no.3461/2018 decided on 30.01.2019 and a

judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Anil Kumar Vs.

Secretary, STA & Ors :: D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.1080/2019

decided on 27.4.2022 wherein the Division Bench has held that

extension of route granted in favour of anybody exceeding the

mandatory outer limit of 24 kms. as per the second proviso to

sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not

sustainable.

Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to

rebut the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and

the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Anil Kumar

(supra).

I have considered the submission made at the bar and gone

through the relevant record of the case.

As per the order dated 5.2.2018 (Annexure-3), extension of

route permit in length of 95 Kms. has been granted in favour of

respondent No.4 which is in violation of second proviso to sub-

section (3) of Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act as the

maximum outer limit to extend a route is only 24 kms. Thus, the

order dated 5.2.2018 passed by the respondent No.2 is in

violation of of the permissible limits of routes and the judgment of

the Division Bench in the case of Anil Kumar (supra).

(3 of 3) [CW-1129/2019]

In view of the discussion made above, the present writ

petition merits acceptance and the same is hereby allowed. The

order dated 5.2.2018 (Annexure-3) is quashed and set aside.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 82-praveen/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)