LAWS(RAJ)-2001-4-125

GORDHAN RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On April 18, 2001
GORDHAN RAM Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the judgment and order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 7.11.2000 (Annex.9), by which the revision filed by respondent No. 4 has been allowed and the variation of conditions of permit in favour of petitioners has been quashed.

(2.) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioners are the stage carriage permit-holders on Pillibanga Mandi to Manewallah intra-regional route falling under the territorial jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner (for short, "the R.T.A."). THE said route runs in 52 Km. in length and altogether 10 permits had been granted on the said route. Petitioners applied for variation of conditions of their permit under the provisions of Sec. 80 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act") to curtail the portion between 24 PBN to Rajasthan Canal and for inclusion of Prempura, 24 PBN, 1 LLP, 3 LNP to Rajasthan Canal. THE R.T.A., Bikaner considered the matter in its meeting held on 28.3.2000 (Annex.3) and resolved to grant the applied variation, i.e. curtailment and inclusion. Respondent No. 4 filed a revision against the said Resolution of the R.T.A. dated 28.3.2000 and subsequent order dated 27.5.2000 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal) on the ground that the impugned variation was against the public interest and, thus, as it caused great inconvenience to the commuters, it was liable to be quashed. Persons living there had to pay more fare and spend more time. THE Tribunal has allowed the revision. Hence this petition.

(3.) WHETHER a person is injured in strict legal sense, must be determined by the nature of the injury considering the special facts and circumstances involving in each case. A fanciful or sentimental grievance may not be sufficient to confer a standi to sue upon the individual. There must be injuria or a legal grievance, as the law can appreciate and not a stat pro ratione valuntas reasons.