SHIV RAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition and the writ petitions, the particulars of which have been given in the Schedule appended to this judgment, involve a common and identical questions of law, which can be decided by this judgment. The facts of all the writ petitions are similar and common except in regard to parties, route in question and some other consequential details.

(2.) The petitioners, who are existing operators on the routes mentioned in the writ petitions, are plying their buses on the routes in question on the basis of the non-temporary stage carriage permits granted in their favour by the respective Regional Transport Authorities. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as (the Act of 1988) came into force with effect from 1/07/1989. The apprehension of the petitioners is that the respective Regional Transport Authorities will grant limitless number of stage carriage permits on the route, on which the petitioners are operating, as under S. 80(2) of the Act, a direction has been given to the respective Regional Transport Authorities not to ordinarily refuse to grant an application for permit "on any ground made for it at any time". According to the petitioners, the Regional Transport Authority who is a one member body constituted for all the six regions of the State of Rajasthan, has already taken the view, while granting the permit on Chittorgarh Badi-Sadri route that the limitless number of permits can be granted in favour of the applicants in view of the provisions of S. 80(2) of the Act of 1988. As no steps have been taken by the State Government to control the uneconomical competition and no directions, as required under S. 67 read with S, 71(3) of the Act of 1988 have been issued by the State Government, and, therefore, the petitioners have preferred these writ petitions praying therein that the State Government may be directed to issue directions under S. 67 read with S. 71(3) of the Act to avoid the uneconomic and unhealthy competition on the various routes. It has, also, been prayed that the Regional Transport Authorities may be restrained from granting any stage carriage permits on the routes in question till the question of scope is determined by the respective Regional Transport Authorities, and the R.T.A. be directed to first fix the scope and then grant permit. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Additional Advocate General as well as Mr. R. N. Munshi, counsel for the various applicants who have applied for grant of permits on various routes.

(3.) The question which requires consideration in the present writ petitions is: whether the State Government is competent to issue a direction under S. 67 read with the S. 71(3) of the Act for fixing the limits on the Inter-Regional or intra-regional routes and failed to do its legal duty and whether the Regional Transport Authority can consider the applications for the grant of permits without fixing the scope on the various routes and whether the Regional Transport Authority is competent to fix the numbers of permits on a particular route?