VISHNU DUTT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals have been filed against the orders passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Rajasthan in the D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 662 of 2001 and cognate matters by which the Division Bench dismissed all appeals and confirmed the common order passed by the learned single Judge in various Writ Petitions.

(2.) The litigation has a chequered history. By a Reciprocal Transport Agreement dated 5th/8th February, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 1968 Agreement) entered into between the State of Rajasthan and the State of Haryana, Hanumangarh - Dabawali via Sangaria inter-State route opened to traffic with a view to encourage movement of transport vehicles on such routes and to regulate and control their operation. The agreement stipulated that four return trips and eight single services will be allowed to buses belonged to State of Rajasthan and 13 permits will be granted. In accordance with the said agreement, the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC for short) was granted 13 stage carriage permits. On February 29, 1996, the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner (RTA for short) granted additional stage carriage permits to private vehicle operators including the respondents in the present appeals. There was a clear stipulation on the permits that they were granted beyond the ceiling fixed under 1968 Agreement.

(3.) On July 14, 1997, the State of Rajasthan and the State of Haryana entered into a fresh inter-State agreement (hereinafter referred to as 1997 Agreement) in supersession of 1968 Agreement for 13 permits with 16 single trips. Clause 4 (iv) clarified that all previous stage carriage permits which were counter signed by either State before the coming into force of 1997 Agreement shall remain in force till the valid period of such permits. According to the appellants, under 1997 Agreement, the route was made open exclusively for private operators. It was also their case that under 1968 Agreement, only RSRTC was granted permits which was within the scope and ceiling fixed by that Agreement and the respondents had no right to ply vehicles.