PRABHU DAYAL Vs. RTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASIND -Vijayanagar via Parasoli, Shimbhugarh, Antoli, Gulabpur (here in after referred to as the 'route') is an 'A' Class route having a length of 54 kilometers. It is over lapped by the notified scheme for Aimer -Udaipur route upto a distance of 4 kilometers from Vijayanagar to Gulabpura Chauraya. The said scheme has been implemented in the year 1975 Rest of the route is being over lapped by a draft scheme published under Section 68 C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the Asind -Vijaynagar via Parasoli Shimbugarh Antoli etc. duly published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated July 26, 1976. Prabhu Dayal, the petitioner in this writ petition is an existing operator on the route and holds a non -temporary permit valid upto December 5, 1982 subject to the incidence of nationalisation. The scope for the route was five See carriages to perform 5 return services. By resolution (Anx. P. 10) dated July 8/9, 1982 the Regional Transport Authority Udaipur Region (here in after referred to as the RTA) increased the scope for the route to 10 stage carriages with eight return services. By another resolution (Ann. P.9) dated July 8/9, 1982, the RTA granted fiae temporary permits on the route to respondents numbers 2 to 6. Being aggrieved by the age(sic)esel and grant of temporary permit in favour of respondent numbers 2 to 6, the petitioner has filed this writ petition wherein he has prayed that a writ of certiorari be issued to quash the sesolution (Ex. P/9) of the RTA dated July 8/9 1982 granting one temporary permit each in favour of respondents Nos 2 to 6 on the route.

(2.) IN the writ petition the petitioner has submitted that the RTA was not competent to grant temporary permits to respondents Nos. 2 to 6 on The route in as much as Section 68 F (IC) of the Act does not empower the RTA to grant a temporary permit for a route which is partly covered by a notified scheme and is partly covered by a draft scheme published under Section 68 C of (sic) Act. Respondents Nos. 2 to 6 have filed a reply to the writ petition where in a preliminary objection has been raised with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that a(sic)revision under Section 64 A if the Act lay before the State Transport Appellant Trubunal (sic) the impugned resolution of the RTA and That the petitioner could (sic) the extraordinary jurisdiction of thus Court under Article 226 of the Constitution without resorting to the alternative remedy of revision available to him under Section 64 A of the Act. In the reply aforesaid it has also been stated that the RTA is competent to grant temporary permits in respect of a route which is partly covered by notified scheme and is partly covered by a draft scheme and that the impugned resolution of the RTA does not suffer from any legal infirmity.

(3.) BEFORE dealing with the contentions urged by Shri R.R. Vyas, the learned Counsel for the petitioner on merits, it will, be necessary to consider the preliminary objection raised by Shri Maheshwari, the learned Counsel for respondents Nos. 2 to 6. with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the alternative remedy of revision under Section 64 A of the Act was available to the petitioner. It is not disputed by Shri Vyas that the alternative remedy of revision under Section 64 A of the Act was available to the petitioner. The submission of Shri Vyas is that the said alternative remedy is no bar to the petitioner approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in view of the fact that the resolution passed by the RTA is completely without jurisdiction. In support of his aforesaid submission Shri Vyas has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in M/s Shiv Bus Service v. RTA Jodhpur 1980 RLW 245. Shri Vyas also submitted that the alternative remedy of revision was not an efficacious remedy in the facts and circumstances of this case because one of the existing operators had filed an appeal before the state Transport Appellate Tribunal against the impugned resolution of the RTA and the said appeal has been dismissed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and in the circumstances no purpose would have been served by the petitioner filing a revision petition before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.