RAM CHANDRA Vs. S T A T

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question which has been raised in this writ petition relates to the plying of stage carriage vehicles on Merta City - -Pipar Road route (hereinafter referred to as 'the route') and more particularly to the via of the route.

(2.) THE petitioner is an existing operator of Gotan - -Pipar City route, being the transferee of the permit of Mohd. Ibrahim. The petitioner's route is via Kawaspura, Chokri and Siyara. It is not disputed that initially two non -temporary stage carriage permits were granted on March 8, 1956 on the route and the original route of those permits was Merta City - -Pipar Road via Hariyadhana Madaliya and Borunda. In the year 1958, both the permits were transferred to Amraram and Vijayraj, who held them jointly. An application for change of the via of the route, so as to incorporate Kawaspura, Chokri and Siyara, in place of Hariyadhana, Madaliya, Borunda was submitted before the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the R.T.A. on July 28, 1966, allegedly on behalf of Amraram and Vijayraj. The aforesaid application for change of via was published in the Rajasthan Gazeite under Section 57(8) read with 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act on March 23, 1967. Amraram subsequently disputed that he did not file the aforesaid application for change of via of the route and alleged that the said application was forged. However, this much is not disputed before me that no objections were submitted by any person whatsoever before the R.T.A. in respect of notification published regarding the change of via of the route. It is alleged by the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 that the matter regarding change of via was allowed by circulation by the R.T.A. vide circulation note date May 1, 1967, but the alleged decision of the matter by circulation is seriously disputed by the petitioner.

(3.) WHETHER , the alleged circulation note decided finally the question of via or not is no doubt disputed, yet it is undisputable that on the basis thereof the via mentioned in the permits of the two existing permits holders was modified and in place of Hariyadhana and Borunda, the names of villages Kawaspura, Chokri and Siyara were specified in those two permits. Thus there was a confusing state of affairs prevailing on the route. Out of 5 permits granted on the route, three were via Kawaspura, Chokri and Siyara, while the other two permits granted in the year 1970 specified the route to be via Hariyadhana, Madaliya and Borunda. The matter Was debated by the parties before the R.T.A , who by its resolution dated January 4, 1974 came to the conclusion that the original via of the route was not modified and that the circulation note dated May 1, 1967 did not result in any final decision on the subject and that the endorsement of via in the permits was made without any specific order. The R.T.A. directed that the endorsement made in the permits of Chhotmal, who was the transferee of the two permits of Amraram Vijayaraj should be rectified, as a correct via of the route was via Hariyadha. and Madaliya. The R.T.A. also held that as Amraram claimed that he did not file any application, it was no longer necessary to pass any order on the said application for change of via, alleged to have been filed on behalf of Amraram.