RAMKUMAR Vs. SECRETARY R T A BIKANER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioner is that he is the holder of a non-temporary stage carriage permit on Suratgarh to Chatargarh route via Mile 80. It is a 'A' Class route, 120 kilometers in length and exists in Bikaner Region. His permit on Bus No. 9366 is valid up to 6-9-1992. Suratgarh to Mile 80 is a route 69 kilometers in length and is a part and parcel of the route Suratgarh to Chatargarh via 80 Mile and completely overlaps it to the extent of 69 Kilometers, out of the total length of 120 kms. The Regional Transport Auth-ority has sanctioned 6 daily return services on the full length of the route and one shuttle service between Suratgarh to Mile 80.

(2.) It is alleged that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 have applied for grant of stage carriage permit on a portion of this route i.e. Surat-garh to Mile 80 and proposed a particular time-table in their applications, which read as under : Suratgarh Mile-80 Mile 80 Suratgarh Manoj Kumar 5.00 p.m. 7.00 p.m. 8.30 a.m. 10.30 a.m. Mayadevi 4.00 p.m. 5.30 p.m. 9.00 a.m. 10.30 a.m. @@@ The applications for grant of stage carriage permit on Suratgarh to Mile 80 route by respondents Nos. 3 and 4 have been marked a Annexures 2 and 3 whereas the time-table sanctioned by the R.T.A. for the entire route is Annexure-1 dated 30-1-1992. The R.T.A. considered these applications for grant of one stage carriage permit each in favour of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 by providing one return service each in its meeting dated 1-8-1991. The R.T.A. vide its order Annexure-4 dated 1-8-1991 has made it emphatically clear that the conditions laid down in Ss. 72 and 84 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act' herein) are imposed on permit-holders. Permit was issued to respondent No. 3 on 3-8-1991 and the time-table which was sanctioned by the Secretary, R.T.A. was as under : Suratgarh Mile-80 Mile 80 Suratgarh 1.30 p.m. 3.30 p.m. 8.45 a.m. 10.45 a.m. @@@ Permit was also issued in favour of respondent No. 4 on 8-8-1991 and the time-table, which was issued in her favour by secretary R.T.A. was as follows : Suratgarh Mile-80 Mile 80 Suratgarh 4.45 p.m. 6.45 p.m. 11.00 a.m. 1.45 p.m. @@@ Thus it is clear that the time-tables issued by the Secretary, R.T.A. are totally different from the time-tables proposed by respondents Nos. 3 and 4. It appears that respondents Nos. 3 and 4 have not only claimed a change in the time-tables through their applications dated 5-2-1992 but they further requested vide their application Annexure-6 that on account of the demand of the people of the locality and further on account of heavy rush due to mela and other Festivals, they want to undertake one additional service on this route. They also proposed a revised time-table in their applica-tion Annexure 6. That revised-table along-with one additional service was sanctioned by the Secretary, R.T.A. Vide his order Annexure 7 dated 6-2-1992. It is this very order Annexure 7, which is under challenge in this writ petition.

(3.) It has been contended that the order Annexure 7 as regards fixing of revised time-table as also grant one addition trip is beyond the competence of the Secretary R.T.A. It is against the provisions of Ss. 70, 71, 72 and 80(3) of the Act. It is also contrary to R.5.4(2)(e), 5.5.(1), 5.5(3)(c), Form R.S. 5.4 and Form R.S. 5.9 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rule of 1990'). It was further con-tended that the Secretary, R.T.A. could only regulate the time-table so proposed by the respondents Nos. 3 and 4, which was accepted by the R.T.A. on 1-8-1991. He could not amend, modify or vary the same. The time-table being a condition of the permit, the Secretary, R.T.A. cannot vary the same and, therefore, the order Annexure 7 passed by the Secretary, R.T.A. deserves to be quashed.