GENERAL MANAGER RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORP JAIPUR Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these writ applications have been filed by the General Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred for the sake of brevity as the "corporation") against the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur, renewing the permits of Mithalal in writ application No. 509 of 1967 and of Hanuman Prasad in writ application No. 1850 of 1966. Since both these matters arise out of similar circumstances and the questions of law involved are common to both, therfore, I propose to dispose them of by one judgment.

(2.) IN order to understand the scope of controversy between the parties, it will be relevant to state certain facts relating to writ application No. 509 of 1967 which are not in dispute. The State Transport Undertaking, namely, the Rajasthan State Roadways published in the Rajasthan Gazette Extraordinary dated 23rd September, 1960, a scheme to nationalise the Jaipur-Bharatpur route. After undergoing the formalities under sec. 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter to be referred as the Act), the scheme was finalised and the said route of Jaipur Bharatpur (hereinafter to be referred as the notified route) was consequently nationalised and the final scheme was published in the Extraordinary Gazette on 14th November, 1960. There was a route known as Bharatpur Bhusawar route which was 33 miles in length and the major portion of that route overlapped the notified route of Jaipur-Bharatpur for a distance of about 29 miles upto Chokerwara. While framing the scheme the Rajasthan State Roadways provided in para 7 (g) of that scheme that on the basis of the permits held by four persons, including Babu Lal Gupta holding permit of No. P. St. P. 878, the existing operators shall be allowed to ply their buses on that route till the validity of those permits subject to the condition that the permits shall be made ineffective on the portion of the notified route between Bharatpur and Chokarwara which means that the permit holders were entitled to ply their buses between Bharatpur and Bhusawar but they could not pick up passengers form Bharatpur to Chokarwara and vice versa and also from places in between these two points in either direction. Babu Lal Gupta after sometime transferred his permit No. P. st P. 878 with the permission of the Regional Transport Authority Jaipur to respondent No. 2 Mithalal and thereafter Mithalal plied his vehicle on the Bharatpur Bhusawar route including the ineffective portion of the notified route, subject of course to the condition imposed by clause 7 (g) of the approved scheme.

(3.) SEC. 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that a stage carriage permit other than a temporary permit issued under sec. 62 shall be effective without renewal for such period which shall not be less than three years and not more than five years, as the Regional Transport Authority may specify in the permit. Sub-sec. (2) of this section further provides that a permit may be renewed on an application made and disposed of as if it were an application for a permit. These provisions of the law clearly indicate that a permit shall be effective only for the period that has been specified in that permit between the limits prescribed in sec. 58 of the Act. By enacting sub-sec. (2) of sec. 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Legislature introduced a provision under which the initial period of the effectiveness of a permit could be extended by the Regional Transport Authority and the permit when renewed shall remain valid till the period for which it was so renewed is expired.