Nihal Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 6902 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6049/2022

Nihal Singh S/o Shri Man Singh Jat, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Dhani Badi Tehsil Rajgarh Dist. Churu (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

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

2. Shri Pankaj Gadhwal, Sub Divisional Officer, Rajgarh, District Churu

3. Municipal Board, Rajgarh, District Churu

4. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Roop Kishore Rathi. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG assisted by Mr. Kunal Upadhyay.

Mr. R.S. Choudhary.

Mr. Avin Chhangani.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

Reserved on 29/08/2023 Pronounced on 06/09/2023

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following

reliefs:

"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the writ petition may kindly be accepted and an appropriate writ, order or direction to be kindly issued declaring order Revenue/2022/391 dated 31-03-2022 (Ann.5) as non-es., void, illegal, without jurisdiction and against the principles of natural justice quashing the same. It is also prayed that by

(2 of 6) [CW-6049/2022]

a suitable order or direction the respondents and/or any of their sub-ordinates be kindly restrained from interfering in the regular use of the said bus stand by the petitioner and other private operators.

Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which is deemed fit and proper may very kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner;

Costs may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner."

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned

counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner holds a stage

carriage permit bearing P.S.T.P. No. RJ 2021-SC-1014A valid upto

16th March, 2026, for Rajgarh - Dabri existing route. The Municipal

Board, Rajgarh fixed Rs.30/- as the fee for parking/entry of bus

for picking up and dropping of passengers. Thereafter, the dispute

arose between the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

(RSRTC), Jaipur and Municipal Board, Rajgarh, regarding the

recovery of the parking fees in question; whereafter, a civil suit

was instituted by the RSRTC against the Municipal Board, and

finally matter came up for consideration before this Hon'ble Court

in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12539/2011 (RSRTC Vs. Municipal

Board, Rajgarh & Ors., decided on 04.02.2013), it was observed

thus :

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. In this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation is challenging validity of order dated 24.09.2011 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rajgarh whereby, in appeal filed by the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Rajgarh, appellate court set aside the order passed by trial court, whereby, temporary injunction application was allowed by the trial court in

(3 of 6) [CW-6049/2022]

favour of Corporation. It is very strange that in this case, two statutory bodies are contesting against each other for the purpose of levying parking charges by the Municipal Council.

It is very strange that litigation is going on between two statutory bodies for which the State authorities are required to take final decision after ascertaining the correct position in accordance with law. Such type of litigation should not be agitated in the Court by statutory bodies of State. Therefore, while dismissing the writ petition, it is ordered that entire matter may be placed before the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur for taking final decision and it is expected from the Chief Secretary to resolve the dispute and to issue proper instructions to the statutory authorities not to take recourse of judicial proceedings in such type of disputes."

2.1 Thereafter, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajgarh addressed the

impugned letter (Revenue/2022/391) dated 31.03.2022 to

Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Rajgarh, stating therein that

that the final decision is going to be taken by the higher

authorities, till then, the Executive Officer was directed to ensure

that only the buses of the Corporation should operate from the

bus stand in question and no permission shall be granted to any

private operator(s) for operating its buses from the bus stand in

question.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

impugned letter dated 31.03.2022 is against the public interest,

because the bus stand in question is being used for the welfare

and convenience of the public at large, and now vide the

impugned action, the private operators are not allowed to operate

through the said bus stand, which is unjustified in law.

(4 of 6) [CW-6049/2022]

3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is

regularly paying the parking fee and using the bus stand in

question, and therefore the impugned letter passed by the SDO

directly affects the rights of the petitioner; furthermore, before

taking the impugned action, no proper opportunity of hearing was

afforded to the petitioner, and thus, the impugned action is also

against the principles of natural justice.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the respondent No. 4-RSRTC, while opposing the aforesaid

submissions on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the

impugned order was passed in terms of the report dated

30.03.2022 sent by the SDO to the District Collector, wherein it

was clearly stated that only RSRTC buses shall be allowed to

operate from the bus stand in question.

4.1. It was further submitted that in compliance of the order

dated 04.02.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Court in the

aforementioned writ petition, the Chief Secretary, Government of

Rajasthan vide Minutes of the meeting dated 17.10.2013, directed

that fee of Rs.10/- per bus shall be charged from the RSRTC

buses, which is not permissible in law, more particularly, when

the land in question was recorded in the name of RSRTC, as per

the Jamabandi.

4.2. It was also submitted that the private bus operators have no

vested right to operate their buses from the bus stand owned and

maintained by the RSRTC, and thus, the impugned action of

permitted only the RSRTC buses to operate from the bus stand in

(5 of 6) [CW-6049/2022]

question, while not permitting the private operators to do so, does

not suffer from any illegality.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the

record of the case.

6. This Court observes that the petitioner is a private bus

operator; the dispute arose between the respondent-Municipal

Board and the respondent-RSRTC in regard to recovery of the

parking fee. The issue came up for consideration before this

Hon'ble Court in the aforementioned writ petition, whereupon vide

order dated 04.02.2013, as reproduced hereinabove, the Chief

Secretory was directed to resolve the dispute between the two

statutory authorities. Thereafter, the SDO summoned both parties,

whereafter, the impugned letter dated 31.03.2022 was issued.

7. This Court further observes that in compliance of the order

dated 04.02.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Court, the Chief

Secretary, Government of Rajasthan vide Minutes of meeting

dated 17.10.2013, directed that a fee of Rs.10/- per bus shall be

charged from the RSRTC buses for operating through the bus

stand in question.

8. This Court also observes that the SDO in report dated

30.03.2022 sent to the District Collector, stated that in compliance

of the order dated 04.02.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Court, the

decision was still pending on part of the Chief Secretary. This

Court further observes that in the impugned letter, the learned

SDO also stated that till final decision is taken by the higher

authorities, only RSRTC buses shall be operated through the bus

(6 of 6) [CW-6049/2022]

stand in question, and no private operation shall be allowed to do

so.

9. In light of the aforesaid observations as well as 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 petitioner in the present

petition.

10. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. However, the

Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan is directed take final

decision on the issue in question and pass appropriate orders,

strictly accordance with law, within a period of six months from

today. Thereafter, in case the petitioner still feels aggrieved, he

shall be at liberty to approach this Court again. All pending

application disposed of.

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

SKant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)