Daula Ram vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7203 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:29642-DB] (1 of 5) [SAW-620/2023]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 620/2023

Daula Ram S/o Sh. Durga Ram, Aged About 50 Years, R/o 29, Aadesh Nagar, Jhalamand, Jodhpur, Rajasthan 342005.

----Appellant Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, Through Transport Commissioner, Government of Rajasthan, Parivahan Bhawan, Sahakar Bhawan Marg, Jaipur 302 005 Rajasthan.

2. Member, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur Head Office Parivahan Bhawan, Sahakar Bhawan, Jaipur-302 005 (Rajasthan).

3. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Bjs Colony, Jodhpur- 342001(Rajasthan)

4. Sagar Khan S/o Sh. Yaseen Khan, R/o Mangaliyo Ka Bas, Siwanchi Gate, Jodhpur (Rj 19 PA 5344, Rj 19 PA 9737, Rj 19 PA 9171)

5. Jai Prakash S/o Sh. Shiv Narayan, R/o K-263, Shiv Basti, Masooriya, Jodhpur. (Rj 19 PA 8383, Rj 19 PA 8604, Rj 19 PA 7878)

6. Ashok Parihar S.o Sh. Shyamlal, R/o 7Th Pal Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Rj 19 PA 9444)

7. Laal Dan S/o Sh. Shaitan Dan, R/o Lakshmanghati, Soorsagar, Jodhpur (Rj 19 PA 9381)

8. Ghasiram Solanki S/o Sh. Mangilal, R/o Kaylana Chauraha, Soorsagar, Jodhpur (Rj 19 PA 7621)

9. Sunil Kumar S/o Sh. Mohanlal, R/o Munna Ki Bari, Soorsagar, Jodhpur (Rj 19 PB 5730)

10. Lakshman Singh Parihar S/o Mohan Singh, R/o Bombay Motor Chauraha, Jagdamba Colony, Jodhpur (Rj 19 PA 8233)

11. Manju W/o Sh. Kan Singh, R/o Banwata Bera, Chainpura, Mandore, Jodhpur (Rj 41 PA 0023)

12. Pushpa Devi W/o Sh. Om Prakash Bhati, R/o 17, Pratap Nagar, Housing Board, Sector 28, Jodhpur (Rj 19 PA 7620)

13. Firoz Khan S/o Sh. Kalu Khan, R/o Sindhi Muslim Masooriya Basti, Pal Road, Jodhpur (Rj 19 PA 9500)

14. Rajendra Gehlot S/o Sh. Balkishan, R/o Ridiya Fata, Soorajbera, Soorsagar, Jodhpur (Rj 19 PB 7595)

15. Ghanshyam S/o Sh. Chunnilal, R/o 1788, Soorajbera, Ward No. 1, Jodhpur (Rj 19 PB 0766)

16. Pukhraj S/o Sh. Kanaram, R/o Amrit Vihar, Shobhawato Ki Dhani, Jodhpur (Rj 19 PB 0012)

17. Snehlata W/o Sh. Praveen Kumar, R/o 2779, Akhaliya Chauraha, Jodhpur (Rj 19 PB 7135)

18. Bajrang Dan S/o Sh. Sohan Singh, R/o Nai Rakasni, Soorsagar, Jodhpur (Rj 19 PA 7548)

19. Abid Khan S/o Sh. Yaseen Khan, R/o Sindhiyo Ka Bas,

[2023:RJ-JD:29642-DB] (2 of 5) [SAW-620/2023]

Mangaliyon Ki Gali, Siwanchi Gate, Jodhpur (Rj 19 PA 7790)

20. Sawai Dan S/o Sh. Hoordan, R/o Santdham Road, Guro Ka Talab, Jodhpur. (Rj 19 PA 8500)

21. Tara Chand S/o Sh. Lakshman, R/o 9th Chopasani Road, Behind Ranbir Bhawan, Sargara Colony, Jodhpur (Rj 19 PA 8098)

22. Ravi Parihar S/o Sh. Manohar Singh, R/o Nai Bhakri, Soorsagar, Jodhpur. (Rj 19 PA 8876)

23. Shaukat Khan S/o Sh. Gaji Khan, R/o Singhi Basti, Masooriya, Jodhpur (Rj 19 PA 9076)

24. Mohammad Farooq S/o Sh. Abdul Aju, R/o 11, Behind Kijiyam Mazjid, In from Gali No. 2, Pratap Nagar, Jodhpur (Rj 19 PA 8704)

25. Narendra Singh S/o Sh. Shyam Singh, R/o Chopasani Road, In Front Of Suthla Chungi Chowk, Jodhpur. (Rj 19 PA 7855)

26. Rohan S/o Sh. Lakshman, R/o Meghwalo Ki Basti, Behind Dalda Building, Ranbir Bhawan, Jodhpur. (Rj 19 PB 7412)

27. Shahnaz Bano W/o Sh. Mohammad Alam, R/o 2238- Bapu Colony, Near Mazjid, Jodhpur. (Rj 19 PA 6736)

28. Jagir Khan S/o Sh. Chand Khan, R/o Soorsagar, Jodhpur.

(Rj 19 PB 4987)

29. Saddam Hussain S/o Sh. Zakir Hussain, R/o Behind Amrav Khan Petrol Pump, Bombay Motor Chauraha, Jodhpur. (Rj 19 PB 3017)

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Saurabh Maheshwari Mr. Tarun Dudia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Roop Kishore Rathi Mr. Sudhir Tak, AAG with Mr. Navneet Singh Birkh

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Judgment

14/09/2023 (Oral)

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment passed by the

learned Single Judge dated 17.07.2023, vide which, the writ

petition preferred by the appellant-petitioner challenging the grant

of extension to the private respondents from Soorajbera to

[2023:RJ-JD:29642-DB] (3 of 5) [SAW-620/2023]

Saidham (Bhooriberi) vide order dated 26.05.2022 passed by the

Member, Regional Transport Authority has been dismissed.

2. It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant with

reference to the order dated 26.05.2022 (Annex.5) that the

competent authority while passing the said order has not fulfilled

the mandate of Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act and

proviso thereto, where it is clearly mentioned that any such

variation or extension within such limits shall be made only after

the transport authority is satisfied that such variation will serve

the convenience of the public and that it is not expedient to

grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so

varied or extended or any part thereof. Learned counsel states

that a perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that it does

not fulfill the mandate of this statutory provision and, therefore,

the said order cannot sustain. He on this basis asserts that the

impugned order dated 26.05.2022 (Annex.5) deserves to be set

aside.

3. Learned counsel for the private respondents as well as the

counsel for the State could not point out any such satisfaction or

the aspect of there being public convenience and public interest

involved in granting such extension, merely the arguments have

been recorded and an order has been passed rejecting the

diversion and accepting the extension.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents as well as the counsel

for the State have made a valiant effort to try and satisfy the

Court with reference to the other reports which have been

submitted by the authorities to contend that there is satisfaction

of the competent authority and thereafter only, the decision has

[2023:RJ-JD:29642-DB] (4 of 5) [SAW-620/2023]

been taken by the competent authority on going through the said

reports. Prayer has, thus, been made for upholding the order

passed by the learned Single Judge and dismissing the appeal.

5. We have considered the submissions made by the counsel for

the parties and with their assistance have gone through the

pleadings and the documents available on record including the

impugned order.

6. Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act and the proviso reads

as follows:-

"Section 80(3) in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (3) An application to vary the conditions of any permit, other than a temporary permit, by the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area or by altering the route or routes or area covered by it, or in the case of a stage carriage permit by increasing the number of trips above the specified maximum or by the variation, extension or curtailment of the route or routes or the area specified in the permit shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit:

Provided that it shall not be necessary so to treat an application made by the holder of stage carriage permit who provides the only service on any route to increase the frequency of the service so provided without any increase in the number of vehicles:

Provided further that,--

(i) in the case of variation, the termini shall not be altered and the distance covered by the variation shall not exceed twenty-four kilometres;

(ii) in the case of extension, the distance covered by extension shall not exceed twenty-four kilometres from the termini, and any such variation or extension within such limits shall be made only after the transport authority is satisfied that such variation will serve the convenience of the public and that it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or extended or any part thereof."

7. A perusal of the above provision would make it clear that the

competent authority was required to record its satisfaction with

reference to such variation/extension, which is sought to be made

by observing that it would serve the convenience of the public.

[2023:RJ-JD:29642-DB] (5 of 5) [SAW-620/2023]

Another requirement is that it was not expedient to grant a

separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or

extended or any part thereof.

8. These requirements of the statute having not been complied

with in the impugned order dated 26.05.2022 (Annex.5), where

merely the arguments of the parties have been referred to and no

satisfaction, whatsoever, or reasons assigned for accepting one

proposal and rejecting the other. Having not been complied with

the mandate of the statute, the said order cannot sustain.

9. We refrain ourselves from further going into the merits of the

case or the other submissions which have been made by the

counsel for the parties for the simple reason that the matter is

required to be remanded back to the competent authority i.e. the

Member, Regional Transport Authority for considering the matter

afresh and passing a fresh order after giving opportunity of

hearing to the parties concerned. The said decision on such

remand be taken within a period of four weeks from today.

10. It is made clear that the order dated 26.05.2022, qua the

private respondents, would operate only for a period of four weeks

and not beyond that period.

11. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH),CJ

18-Shahenshah/Anil Singh-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)