Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sarjeet Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:51289) on 26 November, 2025

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2025:RJ-JD:51289]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11465/2021

Sarjeet Singh S/o Balwinder Singh, Aged About 47 Years, R/o
12/15 Sgr Shri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                         Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Cum Transport
         Commissioner, Transport Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
         Jaipur.
2.       Member,         State           Transport         Authority,         Transport
         Department, Parivahan Bhawan, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur.
3.       Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner Region,
         Bikaner.
4.       Paramjeet Singh Sikh S/o Sh. Ratan Singh, R/o 22Gb Post
         Office 19 Gb, Shri Vijay Nagar, Shri Ganganagar.
                                                                      ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :    Mr. AC Tiwari
For Respondent(s)              :    Mr. Deepak Chandak



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

26/11/2025

1. Heard.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by a

judgment rendered by a coordinate bench of this Court in a batch

of petitions led by S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3461/2018

(Gopal Purohit V/s State of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on

30.01.2019. For ready reference, the relevent portion of the said

judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

(Uploaded on 27/11/2025 at 12:16:48 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:51289] (2 of 6) [CW-11465/2021]

11. As a matter of fact, this aspect of the matter, stands covered by decision of this Court in Ram Niwas's case (supra) wherein the Court while examining the identical issue held :-

"6. ............ If the section is read without referring to the

proviso then it simply says that an application for inclusion or a new route or routes or a new area or altering the route or routes or area covered by the permit by increasing the number of trips, all these contingencies, shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit. Therefore, in the case of extension if the holder moves an application for inclusion or exclusion or extension or variation or curtailment of the route or routes then in such contingency it shall be treated to be an application for grant of a new permit. But the first proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the Act of 1988 says that it shall not necessarily be treated as 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. It means that if a single operator is operating on that route and he requests for increasing the frequency of service and makes an application to that effect then the increasing the frequency to that applicant on an application made by him that application will not be treated as an application for grant of a new permit. But in the another contingency i.e. if a variation or extension is sought then it is covered by the second proviso. In the second proviso clause (I) deals with variation and clause (ii) says that in the case of variation, the termini shall not be altered and the distance covered by the variation shall not exceed twenty-four kilometers. The simple grammatical interpretation of clause (i) of the second proviso is that in case of a stage carriage permit holders moves an application for variation of his permit then the first thing is that the termini shall not be altered and the distance, which can be varied shall not exceed 24 kms. That means

(Uploaded on 27/11/2025 at 12:16:48 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:51289] (3 of 6) [CW-11465/2021]

that to the extent of 24 kms. from the termini can be varied. The ceiling is 24 kms. No variation will be permitted beyond 24 kms. The idea is that the stage carriage permit holder can be given a variation in his route upto the maximum extent of 24 kms. It does not mean that 24 kms. variation can be given at any number of times. If such construction is put on this clause then that would amount to frustrating the purpose of the provision. The very fact that one point is fixed i.e. termini and from that a deviation can be given only to the extent of 24 kms. Therefore, the ceiling of 24 kms. cannot be lost sight of. The maximum deviation which can be given is of 24 kms. and not beyond that. It is different that the deviation can be given in a piece meal like that 10 kms. at one time and 10 kms. at another time and 4 kms. at other time. That means that the variation can be given at a number of times but the maximum limit is 24 kms. It is not the intention of the legislature to mean that 24 kms. of variation can be given at any number of times. The mere fact that the legislature has chosen the word that variation shall not exceed 24 kms. from the termini, that means that from either of the termini the stage carriage permit holder can get variation/ extension to the maximum limit of 24 kms. and not beyond that. ...............

Therefore, if sub-section (3) is read with the second proviso it would mean that in the normal course if any condition of the permit is varied like inclusion or exclusion of some area and increasing the number of trips and application for curtailment of the route then such variation/ extension upto extent of 24 kms. that will not be treated to be a new permit. Thus, a reading of subsection (3) with clauses (i) and (ii) of second proviso would show that the variation and extension upto the limit of 24 kms. from the termini is permissible and that would not amount to grant of a new permit. This proviso is an exception to sub-section (3) and this will only be

(Uploaded on 27/11/2025 at 12:16:48 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:51289] (4 of 6) [CW-11465/2021]

applicable when extension or variation is to the extent of 24 kms........" xxxxxxx

(emphasis supplied)

12. There is yet another aspect of the matter. As per second proviso, variation and extension within the limit prescribed could be made by the Transport Authority only after being 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 so varied or extended or any part thereof. It is noticed that in Writ Petition No.9584/18 while granting the extension in respect of the route Bikaner to Ratangarh (148 kms.), the inclusion/ extension allowed is of three routes in the length of 172 kms., whereas, in respect of the selfsame route, in Writ Petition No. 9604/18, the inclusion/ extension granted is of five routes in the length of 309 kms. There is nothing on record suggesting that while granting the variation of the permits as aforesaid, the authority has recorded its satisfaction that for the public convenience it is necessary to grant the inclusion as prayed for and it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or extended or any part thereof. Thus, the action of the STA/RTA in granting inclusion/ extension dehors the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the Act is ex-facie illegal and arbitrary.

13. It is true that if an alternative and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner under the relevant statute, the High Court would not ordinarily interfere invoking its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But then, it is also equally well settled that it is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than rule of law. As laid down by a Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of "Calcutta Discount Company Limited vs. Income Tax Officer, Companies District, I and Ors.", AIR 1961 SC 372 and "A.V.Venkateswaran vs. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani & Ors.", AIR 1961 SC 1506, where there is complete lack of jurisdiction in the authority to take action

(Uploaded on 27/11/2025 at 12:16:48 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:51289] (5 of 6) [CW-11465/2021]

impugned, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to refuse the relief on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. In the instant cases, as noticed above, the action of the STA/RTA in entertaining and granting the application of the private respondents herein seeking extension/inclusion of the routes in the length beyond 24 kms. as also in permitting the alteration of the termini of the route, is ex facie without jurisdiction and thus, this court is not inclined to nonsuit the petitioners on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of appeal/revision under the Act.

14. In Arjun Ram's case (supra), learned counsel appearing for the petitioner conceded that alternative remedy is available and withdrew the petition and thus, the said order passed not deciding any issue, cannot be considered to be a binding precedent.

15. But then, learned counsel appearing for the private respondents is justified in contending that the petitioner Mool Singh in Writ Petition No.9584/18 and 9604/18, while questioning the order passed by the STA/RTA granting inclusion/extension of routes granted in favour of the respondents cannot be permitted to retain the benefits of similar order passed by the STA granting extension of the route in his favour beyond 24 kms. and therefore, such order passed by the STA in favour of the petitioner Mool Singh also deserves to be quashed and set aside.

16. In view of the discussion above, the writ petitions succeed, the same are hereby allowed. The orders impugned passed by the STA/RTA in granting inclusion/ extension of the routes in favour of the private respondents as also the inclusion/extension of the routes granted in favour of Mool Singh, the petitioner in Writ Petitions No. 9584/18 and 9604/18, beyond the permissible limits as provided by second proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 80 are quashed. The permits originally granted to the private respondents and the petitioners in respect of the specified notified routes shall

(Uploaded on 27/11/2025 at 12:16:48 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:51289] (6 of 6) [CW-11465/2021]

remain valid and operative for the period specified in the permit. No order as to costs."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

may be permitted to file a representation for redressal of his

grievances in the light of judgment rendered by a coordinate

bench of this Court in the case of Gopal Purohit (supra) and the

respondents may be directed to decide the same expeditiously.

4. Upon receipt of the representation, the respondent-

authorities shall examine the averments therein and assess

whether the case of the petitioner falls within the four corners of

the judgment referred supra. If the petitioner is found similarly

situated, the same benefit shall be extended to him as well. The

entire exercise shall be undertaken and concluded within a period

of sixty days thereafter.