LAL CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE four writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution have been filed by two sets of petitioners for getting certain order of the Joint Legal remembrancer, Government of Raiasthan, Jaipur quashed. Since the grounds raised for quashing the main order are not only common, but the same arguments have been advanced by both the parties, It shall be convenient as well as proper to decide them by one order. In order to appreciate the legal questions involved, the facts of one writ petition i. e. No. 76 of 1971 are given in details.

(2.) THE petitioners of writ petition No. 76 of 1971 are operators on Shahpura-Bijai nagar via Gulabpura route and are plying their bus R. J. E. 462 on that route. A scheme under Section 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was published by the General Manager, Rajasthan State Road transport Corporation. Jaipur in the Raiasthan Raipatra dated 13-1-1966 in respect of Ajmer-Bhilwara and Ajmer-Bhinai routes vide Annexture P/1. In this writ petition we are concerned with Ajmer-Bhilwara route only. The petitioners' route is overlapped by Ajmer-Bhilwara route from Bijainagar to Gulabpura which is a distance of about one and a half miles. The petitioners therefore, sent objections in respect of that scheme by registered post to the Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan. Transport Department on 1-3-1966 vide Annexure P/2. Thereafter respondent No. 2 Joint Legal Remembrancer issued a notice in the Raiasthan rajpatra dated 24-10-1966 that he would be hearing objections to the Ajmer-Bhilwara scheme on 15-12-1966. The petitioners on that date moved an application challenging the jurisdiction of the Joint Legal Remembrancer in hearing objections and explaining the delay also in the filing of the objections with a prayer that the objections may be treated as within time. According to the petitioners the joint Legal Remembrancer on 17-6-1967 dismissed the application of the petitioner on the ground that he had jurisdiction to proceed with the scheme, but at the some time he did not decide the question of limitation expressly and asked all the objectors in respect to that scheme to produce their evidence. In this the petitioner took that their objection was treated within time by the Joint Legal remembrancer. Meanwhile the Supreme Court while deciding Civil Appeals Nos. 1381 and 1384 of 1967 on January 4. 1968 observed as follows:--

(3.) IT might be stated here that by application Annexure P/10 the petitioners challenged the publication of the scheme in respect of Ajmer-Bhilwara and Ajmer-Bhinai routes on the ground that it was not published in accordance with the provisions of Section 68-C of 'the Act. ' This application was dismissed by order annexure P/14 dated 26-10-1970 and even though in the prayer clause of the writ petition Annexure P/14 is also sought to be quashed, in fact during the course of hearing, which lasted for three years. 110 argument was raised against Annexure p/14 by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In other words he did not challenge the validity of Annexure P/14 at all.