RAM NIWAS Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners by this writ petition have prayed that it may be declared that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal STAT No. 151/92 Babulal Jain vs. R. T. A. , Ajmer and others under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles No. 3 had no right to prefer the said appeal against the order of the R. T. A. Ajmer dated 11. 3. 1992. Lastly, it is prayed that the order dated 29. 9. 1992 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur in the aforesaid appeal the quashed and set aside.

(2.) THE petitioners are the holders of stage carriage permits on Gachipura of Khari existing route. THE petitioner No. 2 was sanctioned the said permit by the R. T. A. , Ajmer on 15. 10. 1990 and the petitioner No. 1 was sanctioned two such permits one on 15. 10. 1990 and another on 14. 8. 1991 subject to the conditions mentioned in Section 72 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Act of 1988') including the condition that the vehicles shall be used only in a specified area or on a specified route. After grant of the said permits it was felt that the portion from Khari to Roza a distance of 5 kms. be included in the said route in order to provide direct services from Gachipura to Roza. Accordingly, on an application moved by the petitioners the R. T. A. , Ajmer granted the inclusion of Khari to Roza route in the said route Gachipura to Khari route. Thus, the route came to be known as Gachipura to Roza via Khari route. A proposal was moved before the R. T. A. , Ajmer for grant/inclusion of Roza to Nimbi route in the said Gachipura to Roza via Khari. On receipt of the said proposal, the authority obtained a survey report wherein it was recommenced that there was no direct services for the villages Gorau, Bharnawa, Jhardia, Nimbi and the proposed inclusion is being for 22 kms. be allowed. THE R. T. A. , Ajmer vide its order dated 11. 3. 1992 allowed the said inclusion of Roza to Nimbi route in the said Gachipura to Roza via Khari route and thus, the petitioners are providing regular passengers transport services on the said route. A copy of the order dated 11. 3. 1992 has been placed on the record as Annex 4. THE respondent No. 3 submitted an appeal under Section 89 of the Act of 1988 against the said order of the R. T. A. , Ajmer. THE State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur (referred to hereinafter as 'the Tribunal') by its order dated 29. 9. 1992 has allowed the appeal and quashed the order of the R. T. A. dated 11. 3. 1992. A copy of the order of the Tribunal has been placed on the record as Annex6. THErefore, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

(3.) MY attention was also drawn to the old provisions of sub- section (8) of Section 57 and Section 48 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as well as Section 72 of the Act of 1988. MY attention was also invited to the provisions of Section 87 of the Act of 1988 regarding grant of temporary permits. It was submitted that under Section 87 of the Act of 1988 which is equivalent of Sec. 62 of the Act of 1939 for grant of temporary permits, this Court has taken the view that a permit of 4 months duration can be granted at any number of times. With great respect, this contention is not correct as the language of Section 62 of the Act of 1939 and Section 87 of the Act of 1988 is different and at the same time both has different context also. The question of granting a temporary permit depends on the temporary need not grant of a temporary permit may warrant looking to the temporary need. But that analogy cannot be applied here because the ceiling has been fixed by the Parliament itself that the extension/variation which is being granted by the authorities looking to the convenience of the public should not be in any case exceed more than 24 kms. and, therefore, the extension or variation can only be granted to the maximum ceiling of 24 kms. from the termini. Thus, the parameters here and the parameters for grant of a temporary permit are different an the analogy for the grant of temporary permit is not of any avail of in the present case. A reference to Section 15 of the General Clauses Act has also been made but that is meaningless in the present context.