Dama Ram vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 12436 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13693/2020

Shri Anil Bhati S/o Shri Raja Bhati, Aged About 41 Years, By Caste Ghachi, R/o 429, Gali No. 5, Milkmain Colony, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

4. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretrate, Bani Park, Jaipur.

5. Shri Pukh Raj S/o Shri Poona Ram, R/o Chawandi, Osiyan, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Respondents Connected With

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11417/2020 Virendra Singh S/o Shri Hari Singh, Aged About 54 Years, R/o 86, Baldeo Nagar, Masuriya, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

3. The State Tranposrt Appellate Tribunal, Raj, Mini Secretrate, Bani Park, Jaipur.

4. Purkha Ram S/o Shri Poona Ram, R/o Chawandi, Osiya, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

                                                                      ----Respondents


                                            (2 of 31)                  [CW-13693/2020]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11452/2020 Dama Ram S/o Shri Moti Ram, Aged About 49 Years, Resident Of Jato Ka Bas, Boranada, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

4. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretrate, Bani Park, Jaipur.

5. Shri Purkha Ram S/o Shri Poona Ram, R/o Chawandi, Osiya, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13683/2020 Smt. Sunder Kanwar W/o Shri Swaroop Singh, Aged About 24 Years, By Caste Charan, R/o Talia, Utrada Judia, Tehsil Bales, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

4. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretrate, Bani Park, Jaipur.

5. Shri Pukh Raj S/o Shri Poona Ram, R/o Chawandi, Osiyan, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13684/2020 Smt. Ganga Devi W/o Shri Mohan Lal Gurjar, Aged About 56 Years, R/o 345, Rameshwar Nagar, Basni, Jodhpur (Raj.).

                                                                        ----Petitioner



                                           (3 of 31)                  [CW-13693/2020]


                                     Versus
1.    State    Of     Rajasthan,          Through         The     Secretary      Cum
      Commissioner,          Transport         Department,         Sahkar        Marg,
      Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

4. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretrate, Bani Park, Jaipur.

5. Shri Pukh Raj S/o Shri Poona Ram, R/o Chawandi, Osiyan, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13685/2020 Shri Narendra Kumar S/o Shri Ganga Vishan Brahmin, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Sarmikpura, Masuria, Near Silavato Ki Maszid, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

4. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretrate, Bani Park, Jaipur.

5. Shri Chiman Singh S/o Shri Sohan Singh, R/o Char Thamba, Mangra Poonjla, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13690/2020 Mehardin S/o Ushman Khan, Aged About 51 Years, By Caste Musalman, R/o Muktja Ki Gali, Siwanchi Gate, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur.

(4 of 31) [CW-13693/2020]

2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

4. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretrate, Bani Park, Jaipur.

5. Shri Chiman Singh S/o Shri Sohan Singh, R/o Char Thamba, Mangra Poonjla, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13696/2020 Saraj Khan S/o Sher Mohad., Aged About 54 Years, By Cast Musalman, R/o F-10, Marudhar Nagar, Pal Link Road, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

4. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretrate, Bani Park, Jaipur.

5. Shri Pukh Raj S/o Shri Poona Ram, R/o Chawandi, Osiyan, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 32/2021 Shri Sohan Lal Jat S/o Shri Shri Durga Ram Jat, Aged About 38 Years, R/o 49 Salawas Road, Sangariya, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur

(5 of 31) [CW-13693/2020]

4. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretrate, Bani Park, Jaipur.

5. Shri Chiman Singh S/o Shri Sohan Singh, R/o Char Thamba, Mangra Poonjla, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 39/2021 Shri Sohan Lal Jat S/o Shri Shri Durga Ram Jat, Aged About 38 Years, R/o 49 Salawas Road, Sangariya, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur

4. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretrate, Bani Park, Jaipur.

5. Shri Chiman Singh S/o Shri Sohan Singh, R/o Char Thamba, Mangra Poonjla, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 57/2021 Arjun Singh S/o Gishu Singh, Aged About 41 Years, By Caste Rajput R/o 345, Second D Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur

4. The Sate Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

5. Chiman Singh S/o Sohan Singh, Char Thamba, Mangra Poonjla, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Respondents

(6 of 31) [CW-13693/2020]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 61/2021 Shri Hari Singh S/o Jethu Singh, Aged About 60 Years, Behind J.p. School, Kheme Ka Kua, Pal Road, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur

4. The Sate Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

5. Chiman Singh S/o Sohan Singh, Char Thamba, Mangra Poonjla, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 97/2021 Shri Anil Bhati S/o Shri Raja Bhati, Aged About 40 Years, By Caste Ghachi, R/o 429, Gali No. 5, Milkman Colony, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur

4. The Sate Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

5. Shri Chiman Singh, R/o Char Thamba, Mangra Punjla, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 98/2021 Shri Dhnna Ram S/o Shri Poona Ram Jat, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Nai Basti, Pal, Jodhpur (Raj.).

                                                                         ----Petitioner



                                           (7 of 31)                   [CW-13693/2020]


                                     Versus
1.     State    Of    Rajasthan,          Through         The     Secretary     Cum
       Commissioner,         Transport         Department,         Sahkar       Marg,
       Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

4. The Sate Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

5. Shri Chiman Singh S/o Shri Sohan Singh, R/o Char Thamba, Magra Poonjla, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 99/2021 Shri Mukesh Purohit S/o Shri Jaswant Singh, Aged About 46 Years, R/o 345, Second D Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur

4. The Sate Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

5. Shri Chiman Singh, R/o Char Thamba, Mangra Poonjla, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 114/2021 Shri Rajendra Singh Charan S/o Shri Durga Ram Charan, Aged About 45 Years, R/o 3Aa-30-31, Madhuban Housing Board, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

(8 of 31) [CW-13693/2020]

2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

4. The Sate Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

5. Shri Chiman Singh, R/o Char Thamba, Mangra Poonjla, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 116/2021 Shri Bala Ram S/o Shri Bhura Ram, Aged About 41 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o Kareli Nadi, Jhanwar, Luni, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

4. The Sate Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

5. Shri Pukh Raj S/o Shri Poona Ram, R/o Chawandi, Ossia, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 119/2021 Shri Ashok Kumar Tiwari S/o Shri Anjani Kumar, Aged About 56 Years, By Cast Sharma, R/o Opp. Girls School, Jalori Gate, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

                                              (9 of 31)                   [CW-13693/2020]


4.        The     Sate    Transport         Appellate        Tribunal,     Raj.,    Mini

Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

5. Shri Pukh Raj, R/o Chawandi, Osiya, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 122/2021 Shri Laxmi Kant S/o Shri Harshkant Brahmin, Aged About 38 Years, R/o 3 Ch 9, Madhuban Housing Board, Basni, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

4. The Sate Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

5. Shri Pukh Raj, R/o Chawandi, Ossia, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 123/2021 Shri Yashpal Singh Charan S/o Shri Rajendra Singh, Aged About 23 Years, R/o 3Aa-30-31, Madhuban Housing Boar,d Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

4. The Sate Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

(10 of 31) [CW-13693/2020]

5. Shri Chiman Singh, R/o Char Thamba, Mangra Poonjla, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 125/2021 Shri Vijay Mewara S/o Shri Nemi Chand, Aged About 39 Years, By Cast Kalal, R/o 5A, 19 Sector, Kudi Bhagtasani Housing Board, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

4. The Sate Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 136/2021 Ashok Kumar Tiwari S/o Shri Anjani Kumar, Aged About 56 Years, B/c Sharma, R/o Opp. Girls School, Jalori Gate, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

4. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretrate, Bani Park, Jaipur.

5. Shri Chiman Singh S/o Shri Sohan Singh, R/o Char Thambha, Magra Punjala, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Respondents

(11 of 31) [CW-13693/2020]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 137/2021 Kistur Ram S/o Shri Aidan Ram, Aged About 57 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Nai Basti, Pal, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

4. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretrate, Bani Park, Jaipur.

5. Shri Pukh Raj S/o Shri Poona Ram, R/o Chawandi, Ossia, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 161/2021 Shri Bhanwar Singh Rajput S/o Shri Hari Singh, Aged About 52 Years, R/o 86 Baldeo Nagar, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

4. The Sate Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

5. Shri Pukh Raj, R/o Chawandi, Osiya, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 162/2021 Shri Mukesh Purohit S/o Shri Jaswant Singh, Aged About 46 Years, R/o 345, Second D Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Raj.).

                                                                        ----Petitioner
                                      Versus



                                            (12 of 31)                  [CW-13693/2020]


1.     State    Of     Rajasthan,          Through         The     Secretary      Cum
       Commissioner,          Transport         Department,         Sahkar        Marg,
       Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

4. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretrate, Bani Park, Jaipur.

5. Shri Chiman Singh S/o Shri Sohan Singh, R/o Char Thamba, Mangra Poonjla, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 164/2021 Shri Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Bansi Singh Rajput, Aged About 38 Years, R/o 1A/117, Kudi Bhagtasani Housing Board, Basni, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

4. The Sate Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

5. Shri Pukh Raj, R/o Chawandi, Ossia, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 473/2021 Harish S/o Nemi Chand, Aged About 42 Years, 1/16, D.d.p. Nagar Madhuban Housing Board, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

                                           (13 of 31)                  [CW-13693/2020]


3.    The     State     Transport         Appellate        Tribunal,     Raj.,    Mini

Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

4. Pukh Raj S/o Poona Ram, Chawandi, Osiya, District Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 479/2021 Harish S/o Shri Nemi Chand, Aged About 42 Years, R/o 1/16, D.d.p. Nagar Madhuban Housing Board, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

4. The Sate Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

5. Shri Pukh Raj S/o Shri Poona Ram, R/o Chawandi, Osiya, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 549/2021 Shri Sarvan Ram S/o Harlal Jat, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Vishnu Ki Dhani, Chandelal, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

4. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretrate, Bani Park, Jaipur.

5. Shri Chiman Singh S/o Shri Sohan Singh, R/o Char Thamba, Mangra Poonjla, Jodhpur (Raj.).

                                                                  ----Respondents



                                           (14 of 31)                 [CW-13693/2020]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 569/2021 Shri Deo Kishan S/o Khadu Ram, Aged About 55 Years, By Caste Bishnoi, R/o Bishnoio Ka Bas, Near Railway Station, Manaklao, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur

4. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

5. Chiman Singh S/o Sohan Singh, Char Thamba, Mangra Poonjla, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 647/2021

Shri Ramesh Bishnoi S/o Shri Chunni Lal Bishnoi, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Singho Ki Dhani, Basni, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur

4. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

5. Chiman Singh S/o Shri Sohan Singh, R/o Char Thamba, Mangra Poonjla, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Respondents

(15 of 31) [CW-13693/2020]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 734/2021 Smt. Lalita Parihar W/o Shri Rajendra Parihar, Aged About 28 Years, By Cast Sen R/o Bholibai Ka Mandir, Khanda Falsa, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

4. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretrate, Bani Park, Jaipur.

5. Shri Pukh Raj S/o Shri Poona Ram, R/o Chawandi, Osiya, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 783/2021 Shri Ramnarayan S/o Shri Madhav Ram, Aged About 34 Years, By Cast Jat, R/o Rampura, Bhatiyan Ramsani, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

4. The Sate Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

5. Shri Pukh Raj S/o Shri Poona Ram, R/o Chawandi, Osiya, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 786/2021 Bhanwar Singh S/o Hari Singh, Aged About 52 Years, By Caste Rajput, R/o 86, Baldeo Nagar, Masuria, Jodhpur (Raj.).

                                                                        ----Petitioner



                                           (16 of 31)                  [CW-13693/2020]


                                     Versus
1.    State    Of     Rajasthan,          Through         The     Secretary     Cum
      Commissioner,          Transport         Department,         Sahkar       Marg,
      Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur

4. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal Raj., Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

5. Purkha Ram S/o Poona Ram, Chawandi, Osiyan, District Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 787/2021 Shri Vijay Mewara S/o Shri Nemi Chand, Aged About 39 Years, By Cast Kalal, R/o 5A, 19 Sector, Kudi Bhagtasani Housing Board, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

4. The Sate Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

5. Shri Purkha Ram S/o Poona Ram, R/o Chawandi, Ossia, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 789/2021 Shri Manoj Parihar S/o Shri Kishore Singh Sain, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Bheru Chowk, Soorsagar, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

(17 of 31) [CW-13693/2020]

2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

4. The Sate Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

5. Shri Chiman Singh S/o Shri Sohan Singh, R/o Char Thamba, Magra Poonjla, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 791/2021 Smt. Indra Jat W/o Shri Kistura Ram Jat, Aged About 55 Years, R/o 230, Nai Basti, Pal, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

4. The Sate Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

5. Shri Pukh Raj S/o Shri Poona Ram, R/o Chawandi, Osiya, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 793/2021 Shri Yashpal Singh Charan S/o Shri Rajendra Singh, Aged About 23 Years, R/o 3Aa-30-31, Madhuban Housing Board, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

                                            (18 of 31)                  [CW-13693/2020]


4.     The     Sate     Transport         Appellate        Tribunal,      Raj.,    Mini

Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

5. Shri Chiman Singh, R/o Char Thamba, Magra Poonjla, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1007/2021 Shri Mangi Lal S/o Shri Moti Lal Brhmin, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Madhuban Housing Board, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

4. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretrate, Bani Park, Jaipur.

5. Shri Chiman Singh S/o Shri Sohan Singh, R/o Char Thamba, Mangra Poonjla, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1311/2021 Shri Jora Ram S/o Shri Pukh Raj, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Basni Ii Phase, Tandiya Ki Dhani, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

4. Shri Chiman Singh S/o Shri Sohan Singh, R/o Char Thamba, Mangra Poonjla, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Respondents

(19 of 31) [CW-13693/2020]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1318/2021 Shri Poona Ram S/o Kola Ram Bishnoi, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Bishnoio Ka Bas, Manaklav, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

4. Shri Chiman Singh S/o Shri Sohan Singh, R/o Char Thamba, Mangra Poonjla, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1452/2021

Shri Jora Ram S/o Shri Pukh Raj, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Basni Ii Phase, Tandiya Ki Dhani, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

3. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region , Jodhpur.

4. Shri Chiman Singh S/o Shri Sohan Singh, R/o Char Thamba, Mangra Poonjla, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.K. Rathi

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudhir Tak, AAG with Mr. Saransh Vij

(20 of 31) [CW-13693/2020]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

Judgment / Order

18/10/2022

These writ petitions have been filed by the

petitioners being aggrieved with the action of the

respondent - transport authorities of not issuing fresh

stage carriage permits to operate city buses on City Bus

Route No.15 + 15 A in the city of Jodhpur.

Since, the controversy involved in these writ

petitions is identical, the facts of SBCWP No.13693/2020

- Shri Anil Bhati Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. are taken

into consideration for adjudicating the dispute.

The petitioner has filed an application on 5.4.2018

before the respondent No.2 - the Secretary, Regional

Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur for grant of

one stage carriage permit to operate city bus on City Bus

Route No.15 + 15 A, which came to be disposed of by the

respondent No.2 vide order dated 31.5.2019 while

observing that since sufficient number of public transport

is available on the aforesaid route; there is no demand

from the public at large to raise stage carriage permits;

taking into consideration the prevalent traffic load and as

there is no vacancy available, the application for issuance

of additional/fresh stage carriage permit filed by the

(21 of 31) [CW-13693/2020]

petitioner is liable to be rejected. The respondent No.2

has also observed that as per the order dated 27.2.2007

passed by the Division Bench of this Court in DBCWP

No.6073/1993 - Mahendra Lodha Vs. State of

Rajasthan, the number of permits to the city buses

cannot be issued more than 250 as per the observations

made by the National Green Tribunal, Central Zone

Bench, Bhopal in Application No.49/2014 about

increasing pollution in the city of Jodhpur, it is not

advisable to issue fresh stage carriage permits on the

concerned city bus routes.

Being aggrieved with the rejection of the application

filed by the petitioner vide order dated 31.5.2019, the

petitioner has preferred an appeal before the State

Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, however, the said

appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 28.2.2020

(Annex.7).

Being aggrieved with the orders dated 31.5.2019

and 28.2.2020 passed by the respondent Nos.2 and 4

respectively, the petitioners have preferred these writ

petitions.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that

the action of the respondents of rejecting petitioners'

applications for issuance of additional/fresh stage

(22 of 31) [CW-13693/2020]

carriage permits on City Bus Route No.15 + 15A is

absolutely illegal. It is further argued that the Division

Bench of this Court in Mahendra Lodha's case (supra)

has restrained the number of permits up to 250 on the

route in question, but as a matter of fact, against 250

permits, only 216 permits are in operation and, as such,

vacancies are available, but the respondents have

illegally rejected the applications filed by the petitioners

while holding that no vacancy is available.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted

that as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

(for short 'the Act of 1988'), no limit for grant of permits

can be fixed under the said Act. It is argued that Sub-

section (3) of Section 71 of the Act of 1988 provides that

the State Government could not exercise the function of

limiting operation of vehicles by fixing the number of the

same unless the Central Government forms an opinion in

this regard.

It is argued that in the instant case, the Central

Government has not formed any opinion with regard to

number of such vehicles and, therefore, the action of the

respondent Nos.2 and 4 of not granting stage carriage

permits to the petitioners is absolutely illegal and without

jurisdiction. It is submitted that in the absence of

(23 of 31) [CW-13693/2020]

necessary statistics, the respondent - transport

authorities cannot be allowed to reject the applications of

the petitioners for grant of stage carriage permits merely

by saying that there is no vacancy of permit and the

route is adequately served by existing operators and

further grant of permit will lead to congestion. It is

further argued that the need of increase in permits on the

concerned city bus route is very much there as the limit

of issuing 250 permits was fixed way back in the year

2007 in Mahendra Lodha's case (supra), however, after

the year 2000, population is increased and the

requirement of more public transport is very much there.

It is also submitted that the existing number of permits

i.e. 216 is not sufficient to cater the needs of the public

at large, however, the respondent - transport authorities

have failed to take into consideration the above situation

and have illegally rejected the petitioners' applications for

issuing additional stage carriage permits on the route in

question.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has also

contended that the traffic on the concerned route is

decreased since 2020 and, as such, issuance of additional

stage carriage permits on the concerned route will not

result in traffic congestion or increase of pollution. It is,

(24 of 31) [CW-13693/2020]

thus, prayed that the impugned orders passed by the

respondent - transport authorities may kindly be set

aside and the respondent - transport authorities be

directed to grant stage carriage permits to the petitioners

on the city bus route No.15 + 15A in the Jodhpur city.

In support of the submissions, learned counsel for

the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of the

Kerala High Court rendered in the case of Saidalavi Vs.

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority,

Malappuram and Ors. [WP (C). No.10617 of 2013

(B). D/d. 06.10.2016]; decision of Uttarakhand High

Court in the case of Vivek Kumar Tandon Vs. State of

Uttaranchal & Ors., reported in 2009 AIHC 1034 and

decisions of the Madras High Court in the cases of S.

Raja Vs. The Secretary (Home) Transport III

Department, State Government of Tamilnadu & Ors.

[W.P. No.12531 of 2020 and W.M.P.Nos.15782 and

15784 of 2020 D/d. 06.10.2020 and Thomas

Madasamy Vs. The Regional Transport Officer

Madurai [W.P.(MD) Nos.6729, 6730, 6731, 6732,

6733 and 6734 of 2019 and W.P. (MD) No.6729 of

2019 D/d. 23.07.2020.

Opposing the writ petitions, learned counsel for the

respondents has argued that the writ petitions filed by

(25 of 31) [CW-13693/2020]

the petitioners are not maintainable as the petitioners are

having an alternate and efficacious remedy of filing

appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal as

constituted under the provisions of Section 89(2) of the

Act of 1988. The respondents have also urged that the

petitioners have filed these writ petitions challenging the

orders dated 31.5.2019 and 28.2.2020 passed by the

respondent Nos.2 and 4 respectively and the letter dated

30.11.2002 issued by the Transport Commissioner and

due to misjoinder clubbing of two different cause of

actions, these writ petitions are not maintainable on

merits.

Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that

the respondent - transport authorities have not

committed any illegality in passing the impugned orders

while taking into consideration the overall facts and

circumstances of the case. It is submitted that at

present, there is no need for increase of stage carriage

permits on the concerned routes as sufficient number of

public transport vehicles are plying on the said routes and

increase in number of said permits will result into traffic

congestion and increase of pollution. It is also argued

that the Regional Transport Authority is very much in

jurisdiction in declining to issue fresh permits on the

(26 of 31) [CW-13693/2020]

concerned routes and there is no force in these writ

petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the material available on record.

So far as the preliminary objection raised by learned

counsel for the respondents is concerned, I am of the

view that merely availability of alternate remedy is not a

bar in entertaining the writ petitions by the High Court

while exercising its extra ordinary jurisdiction. It is true

that ordinarily a writ court cannot entertain a petition

where remedy of filing statutory appeal is available to the

party, but it is also true that availability of alternate

remedy itself is not a bar in entertaining a petition in its

extra ordinary jurisdiction and looking to the facts and

circumstances of the case, the High Court can entertain a

petition despite availability of alternate remedy.

The facts of the present case are clear and

unambiguous, hence, this Court decides to ignore the

preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the

respondents and proceeds to decide the writ petitions on

merits.

So far as the contention of learned counsel for the

petitioners to the effect that as per the provisions of Sub-

section 71(3) of the Act of 1988, the respondent -

(27 of 31) [CW-13693/2020]

transport authorities have no jurisdiction to limit the

number of stage carriage permits or contract carriage

permits until and unless the Central Government forms

an opinion with regard to the number of vehicles, road

conditions and other relevant factors is concerned, the

same has lost its relevance because the number of stage

carriage permits in the Jodhpur city is restricted up to

250 as per the directions issued by this Court in

Mahendra Lodha's case (supra). The Hon'ble Division

Bench of this Court in Mahendra Lodha's case (supra)

has passed the order dated 21.11.2000, relevant portion

whereof, reads as under :

"G. One of the major pollutants identified in various affidavits is the Tempos. We are informed that there are about 436 Tempos plying in the city. In addition, there are three wheelers, city buses, mini doors.

Considering the material available on record, it is directed that there shall be complete ban on moving of tempos on the main road starting from Darpan Cinema to Sojati Gate, Railway Station and Jalori Gate. On these routes, the number of city buses shall also be reduced to 250."

The said order/directions issued by the Division

Bench in Mahendra Lodha's case (supra) made

absolute vide judgment dated 19.2.2007 while disposing

the above-referred case. As such, it is clear that number

(28 of 31) [CW-13693/2020]

of stage carriage permits for city buses on the concerned

route i.e. 15 + 15A, starting from Darpan Cinema to

Sojati Gate, Railway Station and Jalori Gate is restricted

to 250.

Now the question remains as to whether the

respondent - transport authorities are justified in

rejecting the application filed by the petitioners for

issuing stage carriage permits on the concerned city bus

route. It is not in dispute that out of maximum limit of

250 stage carriage permits, only 216 are in currency. The

respondent - transport authorities had refused to grant

additional stage carriage permits on the concerned city

bus route, firstly, on the ground that sufficient public

transport is available on the concerned route and if the

number of permits is increased on the said route, it may

lead to traffic congestion and increase in pollution,

whereas the National Green Tribunal, Central Zone

Bench, Bhopal has already raised concern about increase

of pollution in the Jodhpur city. The respondent -

transport authorities have also observed that since

sufficient number of public transport is available, there is

no public demand to increase the means of public

transport and taking into consideration the existing traffic

congestion, it is not advisable to issue new permits. It is

(29 of 31) [CW-13693/2020]

true that under the liberalized policy, ordinarily the

transport authorities should not refuse to grant permit,

however, as per proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 80

of the Act of 1988, the Regional Transport Authority,

State Transport Authority or any other prescribed

Authority can refuse the application for grant of permit

after providing reasons in writing and after providing

opportunity of being heard to the applicant. In the

present matter, opportunity of hearing was provided to

the petitioners and reasons have also been given by the

respondent - transport authorities for refusing to issue

new state carriage permit in favour of the petitioners.

The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners

that traffic on the concerned route is decreased is difficult

to digest. The Division Bench of this Court, way back in

the year 2000, after taking into consideration the traffic

conditions and the possibility of increase in pollution, has

restricted the number of permits on the concerned route

up to 250 and it cannot be said that the traffic on the

concerned route is decreased today i.e. in the year 2022

and risk of increase of pollution is not there. Everyone

knows that with the increase of population, number of

vehicles, private or public, have been increased

enormously. The traffic on the said route increased

(30 of 31) [CW-13693/2020]

manifold since year 2000 and, in such situation, no

direction can at all be issued for increase in the permits.

Taking into consideration the above facts and

circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the

reasons supplied by the respondent - transport

authorities for not issuing permits in favour of the

petitioners cannot be said to be unreasonable or

unjustified in any manner.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mithilesh Garg and

Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., [Writ

Petition (Civil) No. 1345 of 1989, decided on

22.11.1991] has held as under :

"17. ...... It is not disputed that the Regional Transport Authority has the power under the Act to refuse an application for grant of permit by giving reasons. It is for the authority to take into consideration all the relevant factors at the time of quasi- judicial consideration of the applications for grant of permits. The statutory authorities under the Act are bound to keep a watch on the erroneous and illegal exercise of power in granting permits under the liberalised policy."

The Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in State

of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. Kalyan Chakrabarty

[M.A.T. Nos.1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 2356,

2357 and 2358 of 2005, decided on 8.9.2005] has

held as under :

(31 of 31) [CW-13693/2020]

"30. Considering all such facts and circumstances and having regard to the aforesaid discussion we are of the opinion that the respondent cannot be said to have unfettered right to get a permit for operating an Auto-Rickshaw in the route for which application was made. The right under Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is also subject to reasonable restrictions. Such restrictions may emanate from various sources which include a subsequent change of situation arising out of too little space for too many vehicles, congestion, pollution, road conditions, public conveyance and so on and so forth."

There is no quarrel about the ratio of the judgments

rendered by different High Courts on which learned

counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance, however,

in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the

same are of no help to the petitioners.

In view of the above discussion, the writ petitions

being bereft of force are hereby dismissed.

Stay petitions are also dismissed.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

ms rathore

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)