RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE six appeals under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1959 are directed against the order dated April 14, 1981 of the learned single Judge by which he dismissed six writ petitions.

(2.) AS these appeals were heard together and common questions are involved, we consider it proper to dispose them of by a common judgment.

(3.) THE learned single Judge by his order dated April 14,1981 dismissel the writ petitions. It will be useful here to refer the following findings of the learned single Judge: In view of the above, it cannot be said that this finding of the Tribunal was based on absence of evidence or extraneous consideration, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution' in the Corporation can afford to have big fleet of vehicles, by which they can provide sufficient services on all routes then transport authorities should not have any difficulty in giving preference to the Corporation, even on routes which are not nationalised. How ever, as the present state of affairs exist, it is obvious that the criticism of the Corporation made in several judgments of the Transport Authorities is justified. It lacks resources and still it volunteers to oust the private operators on routes, which are not natioalised, by making a tall offer of putting 1980 models. The jugglery of showing a list of vehicles which the Corporation had got, by using it on all and sundry routes, cannot be allowed to oust the private bus operators, who are providing genuine and reasonable facilities. If the Corporation wants to oust all private bus operators on routes, which are not nationalised, why should there be delay in nationalising these routes also? Conversely, if the Corporation cannot nationalise them and further cannot afford a' big fleet of vehicles, it is difficult to appreciate why it should be over jealous (?) and enthusiastic to monopolise all the routes? After all the 'Bus service' is meant for public convenience and not for operators of Corporation. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that though in a given case, the Corporation can be allowed to have monopoly if it has got proper facilities to provide good service to people, but merely by tasting the bogey of social control and / or preferential claim of the Corporation, it cannot displace and oust the private bus operators on unnationalised routes. Since I have found that the criticism of the Tribunal against the Corporation is justified and in that context permitting the private bus operators to have competition with the Corporation on these routes would result in providing better facilities to the traveling public, I am of the opinion that the judgment of the Tribunal is justified both, on facts and in law. It may be mentioned that the learned Judge in our opinion was right whan he observed that in view of Section 47(1 -H) of the Act, Corporation is entitled to preference on the fulfillment of the conditions mentioned in the proviso appended there to. The learned single Judge was also right in holding that the Corporation can be allowed to have monopoly. earned Counsel for the bus operators aced reliance on Kondala Roa v. An Pra, S. R. T . Corporation : [1961]1SCR642 and Sri Ram Vilas v. Chandrashekharan : [1964]5SCR869 In Kondala Rao's AIR 1961 SC 82, it was observed as follows: I here can be no legal objection to a phased programme in the nationalization of transport services in a State or a district or to the framing of more than one scheme for a district, where the Govt. make it clear that each scheme would be implemented in its entirity commencing from different dates.