Bhanwara Ram vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 2275 Raj

[2023/RJJD/006663]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11953/2020

Bhanwara Ram S/o Shri Prema Ram, Aged About 35 Years, By Caste Dudi, Resident Of Village Chau District Nagaur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

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

2. The Regional Transport Authority, Through Its Secretary Bikaner Region, Bikaner.

3. The State Transport Authority, Bikaner Region, Head Office Jaipur, Parivahan Bhawan, Sahkar Marg, Jaipur.

4. Shri Subhash S/o Shri Bhagwana Ram, Resident Of Street No. 19 And 20 Raipura Basti Bikaner (Owner Of Bus No. Rj-07-Pa-7485).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhanwara Ram (petitioner in person) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudhir Tak, AAG assisted by Mr. Saransh Vij

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment Reserved on 14/03/2023 Pronounced on 20/03/2023

1. The lawyers are abstaining from the work, due to strike.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

(1) That the respondent no.3 State Transport Authority, Jaipur may very kindly be directed to forthwith cancel 5 additional services granted to the respondent no.4 on Bikaner-Nokha Via Desnokh notified route no.203 vide order dated 7.11.2017 (Annex. 5) passed by the State Transport Authority, Jaipur.

(2) That 5 additional services sanctioned in the permit of the respondent no.4 on Bikaner-Nokha via Desnokh

[2023/RJJD/006663] (2 of 8) [CW-11953/2020]

notified route no. 203 vide order dated 07.11.2017 (Annex.

5) may very kindly be forthwith cancelled.

(3) Any other order which this court thinks, just and proper may be passed in favour of the petitioner. (4) Cost of the writ petition may also kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner".

3. As the pleaded facts and the record would reveal, the State

Government, while de-nationalizing all the notified routes, in the

best interest of the public at large, proposed to allow the private

operators to operate their vehicles on the notified schemes, and

for that purpose, a Notification dated 01.10.2014 came to be

published in the Rajasthan Gazette, in exercise of the powers

conferred by Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,

proposing to modify all the schemes.

3.1 After receiving and considering the objections submitted by

all the stake-holders, including the State Transport Undertaking,

the State Government made the modifications in all the schemes

vide Notification dated 29.05.2015 permitting the private

operators to pay for hire or reward stage carriages on the routes

specified in the concerned scheme(s), and thereafter, the State

Government, vide Notification dated 02.09.2015 (Annex-1) issued

a direction to the State Transport Authority, Rajasthan, Jaipur, for

limiting the number of vehicles and number of services on such

routes of the notified schemes, as mentioned in the chart (running

from Serial No.1 to 476) incorporated in the said Notification.

3.2 The petitioner was granted a permit, under the aforesaid

Notification dated 02.09.2015, on Bikaner-Nokha (via Deshnok)

notified route No.203, duly sanctioned under Chapter V of the

[2023/RJJD/006663] (3 of 8) [CW-11953/2020]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, while the respondent no. 4 was granted

the permit on Bikaner-Nokha (via Desnokh) notified route No. 203

by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority Bikaner vide order

dated 29.01.2016 (Annex-2) to operate one single service on the

said route; in compliance of the said order, the respondent No.4

was also issued stage carriage permit on 12.07.2016, which was

valid upto 11.07.2021 for 5 single service, on route No. 203.

3.3 Thereafter, the State Government, vide Notification dated

31.10.2017 (Annex-4), increased the single services on Bikaner-

Nokha (via Desnokh) notified route No. 203 from 3 single services

to that of 18 single services. The respondent no.4 submitted an

application for grant of 5 additional services in his permit on the

said Bikaner-Nokha (via Desnokh) route, and the State Transport

Authority, Jaipur vide order dated 07.11.2017 (Annex-5), granted

the same.

3.4 Subsequently, the State Government, vide Notification dated

23.09.2019 (Annex-6), again modified the number of permits and

services and fixed the scope of 3 permits to provide 3 single

service on the notified route No. 203 Bikaner-Nokha (via

Desnokh). The petitioner is aggrieved with the continued

allowance of the 5 additional services sanctioned in respect of the

permit of the respondent no. 4 by the State Transport Authority,

as the respondent's route substantially overlaps the petitioner's

route.

4. Mr. Bhanwara Ram petitioner in person submitted that the

State Government, vide the aforementioned Notification dated

23.09.2019, has fixed the number of permits and number of

[2023/RJJD/006663] (4 of 8) [CW-11953/2020]

services as 3 permits to operate 3 single services on the Bikaner-

Nokha (via Desnokh notified) route No. 203, and a further

direction was issued not to allow any operator to operate more

permits and more services, than fixed under the aforementioned

notification dated 23.09.2019.

4.1 The petitioner in person further submitted that the 5

additional services were sanctioned in respect of the permit of the

respondent no.4 under the notification dated 31.10.2017 by which

the single services on the said route were increased from 3 single

services to 18 single single services, and once the State

Government, vide the aforementioned Notification dated

23.09.2019, had fixed the scope of 3 permits and 3 single services

on the route in question, then the State Transport Authority ought

to have cancelled those 5 additional services of respondent no.4.

4.2 In addition, it was submitted that the State Government is

under a legal obligation to forthwith cancel the 5 additional

services sanctioned in the permit of the respondent no. 4, and

thus, the said 5 additional services being operated by the

respondent No.4 on the route in question is wholly illegal and

contrary to the notification dated 23.09.2019. The petitioner in

person, thus berated the inaction on the part of the State

Transport Authority and asserted the same being wholly illegal,

arbitrary and invalid.

4.3 The petitioner in person asserted that the Notification dated

02.09.2015 has been issued by the State Government with the

object to limit the number of vehicles and number of services on

any notified route where private operators have been allowed to

[2023/RJJD/006663] (5 of 8) [CW-11953/2020]

operate by fixing the scope of 3 permits and 3 single services, and

thus, the Notification dated 31.10.2017 cannot be sustained.

4.4 In support of his submissions, the petitioner present in

person relied upon the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench

of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Gopal Purohit Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ No. 3461/2018 alongwith

other connected matters, decided on 30.01.2019), which was

allowed the petition, while quashing the orders impugned therein

passed by the SRT/RTA in granting inclusion/extension of the

routes in favour of the privates respondents therein, beyond the

permissible limits as provided by the second proviso to sub-

section (3) of Section 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

4.4.1. Therefore, as per the petitioner in person, the extension of

route cannot be more than 24 kms., and thus, the impugned

action of the official respondents herein is unsustainable in the eye

of law.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General

appearing for the respondents opposed the aforesaid submissions

made by the petitioner in person, and submitted that on account

of bona fide mistake, it was erroneously informed to the

Headquarter by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority,

Bikaner, that on route no.203, 3 permits with 3 single services are

operating, and on account of such bona fide mistake, it was

indicated in the notification dated 23.09.2019 that on the said

route, there are 3 permits with 3 single services.

5.1 However, as per learned Additional Advocate General,

thereafter, the Secretary, RTA, Bikaner, vide letter dated

[2023/RJJD/006663] (6 of 8) [CW-11953/2020]

01.07.2021, had already requested the Secretary STA, Jaipur for

amendment in the said notification, and to redetermine the scope

on the said route as 3 permits with 18 single services.

6. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that

presently, on the aforementioned route 3 permits with 18 single

services are operating, as per the Rules in vogue, and accordingly

the respondent no. 4 was granted 5 additional services, in

accordance therewith, and thus, the official respondents were

justified in taking the impugned action.

7. Learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that the

judgment rendered by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Gopal

Purohit (supra) is clearly distinguishable from the factual matrix

of this case, and thus, the same cannot apply to the present case.

8. Heard the petitioner present in person as well as learned

Additional Advocate General on behalf of the respondents, and

perused the record of the case, alongwith judgment cited at the

Bar.

9. This Court finds that the State Government vide notification

dated 02.09.2015 issued a direction to the State Transport

Authority, Rajasthan, Jaipur, for limiting the number of vehicles

and number of services on such routes of the notified schemes, as

mentioned in the chart (running from Serial No.1 to 476)

incorporated in the said Notification. Thereafter, the respondent

no.4 came to be granted a permit to operate one single service on

the route in question vide order 29.01.2016 passed by the

Secretary Regional Transport, Bikaner; and subsequently, the

validity of the permit of the respondent no.4 was extended upto

[2023/RJJD/006663] (7 of 8) [CW-11953/2020]

11.07.2021 and the service was extended to 5 single services, in

addition, pertaining to the aforementioned route. The respondent-

authorities vide order dated 23.09.2019 modified the number of

permits and services, as informed by the learned Additional

Advocate General.

10. This Court further finds that the respondent-authorities

themselves admitted that the modification order dated 23.09.2019

is a bona fide mistake on the part of the concerned authority, who

vide letter dated 01.07.2021, had requested the Secretary, State

Transport Authority, Jaipur to redetermine services on the

aforementioned route.

11. This Courts also finds that the judgment rendered in the case

of Gopal Purohit (Supra) dealt with the extension of the route

covered by permit granted beyond the permissible limit under

sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988; while

in the present case, the issue is pertaining to fixation of the

permits and modification of services on the route in question.

Therefore, the judgment rendered in Gopal Purohit (Supra) is

not applicable in the present case.

12. This Court further finds that the respondent-authorities being

competent to change the number of services on any route for the

benefit of the public at large. Thus, the decision to give additional

services to a person, lies within the powers and jurisdiction of the

appropriate authority.

13. In light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the

factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit

case so as to grant any relief to the present petitioner.

[2023/RJJD/006663] (8 of 8) [CW-11953/2020]

14. Consequently, the present petition are dismissed. All pending

applications stand disposed of.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)