LAWS(RAJ)-1978-11-6

RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY JAIPUR

Decided On November 17, 1978
RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Appellant
V/S
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, JAIPUR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals from the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court raise a common question as to the true meaning of the words "till the validity of the aforesaid permits" appearing in the scheme of nationalisation of passenger road transport services on the Jaipur-Bharatpur route and of similar words appearing in the similar scheme as to the Jaipur-Alwar route, both duly approved and published in accordance with the provisions of Section 68-D, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short, the Act), in the Rajasthan Gazette Extraordinary dated, December 14, 1960. The expression 'approved scheme' will hereafter be used as having reference to either or both of these schemes.

(2.) In order to appreciate the controversy, it is necessary to state a few facts here. The approved schemes which admittedly carry the force of law and which are pari materia lay down, inter alia, that:--

(3.) Turning now to the facts in the other appeal (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 20 of 1968), it relates to the notified route, Jaipur-Alwar. The Jaipur-Achrol- Partapgarh route was overlapping this notified route to the extent of 42 miles between Jaipur and Achrol. Hanuman Prashad, respondent 2 herein, held permit No. P. St. P. 909 which entitled him to ply his vehicle on the Jaipur- Achrol-Partapgarh route, even after the approved scheme came into force in respect of the notified route of Jaipur-Achrol, but he could ply only till the validity of his permit and that too subject to its being made ineffective as provided in Clause 7 of the approved scheme. He succeeded in getting this permit renewed from the R.T.A. twice, for a period of 3 years each. The R.T.A. granted a third renewal, but the same was challenged by the Corporation by way of a writ petition (No. 1850 of 1966) filed in this Court. This writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge by the same judgment whereby he dismissed the other writ petition, viz., No. 509 of 1967.