NARENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents on 17. 3. 2004 with the prayer that by appropriate writ, order or direction, the Resolution dated 5. 3. 2004 (Annex. 7) passed by the respondent No. 2 Regional Transport Authority, Sikar by which two stage carriage permits on the inter-state route Rajgarh-Hissar Via Jhumpa were granted one in favour of respondent No. 3 Bharat Singh on the ground of being Ex-service man and the other in favour of the respondent No. 4 Subesingh on the ground of being a member of Scheduled Caste category, be quashed and set aside.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:- In supersession of earlier agreement, the State of Rajasthan and State of Haryana entered into a new inter-state reciprocal transport agreement on 9. 7. 1997, which was published in the Rajasthan Gazette through Notification dated 15. 7. 1997, a copy of which is marked as Annex. 1. THE further case of the petitioner is that this Court issued some directions in D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 1068/1998 and in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, the respondent No. 2 Regional Transport Authority, Sikar notified the vacancies for grant of two non-temporary stage carriage permits to operate four single trips on the inter-state route Rajgarh-Hissar via Jhumpa vide Notification dated 5. 08. 2003, which was published in Rajasthan Gazette on 13. 08. 2003 and a copy of the said Notification is marked as Annex. 2. THE further case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of the Notification Annex. 2 dated 5. 8. 2003, the petitioner also applied for grant of permit on the route in question in the prescribed proforma on 14. 08. 2003 and a copy of the application is marked as Annex. 3. THE further case of the petitioner is that other persons including respondents No. 3 and 4 also applied for grant of permit on the route in question and as per circulation note Annex. 4, the name of the petitioner appeared at serial No. 34, while the names of the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 appeared at serial Nos. 40 and 41 respectively. THE further case of the petitioner is that a meeting was held on 10. 2. 2004 for consideration of the application for grant of permits on the route in question and the respondent No. 2 Regional Transport Authority, Sikar pronounced the decision vide Resolution dated 5. 3. 2004 (Annex. 7) whereby the respondent No. 2 RTA granted two permits on the interstate route Rajgarh Hissar Via Jhumpa one in favour of the respondent No. 3 Bharat Singh on the ground of being Ex-service man and the other in favour of the respondent No. 4 Subesingh on the ground of being member of the Scheduled Caste category. Aggrieved from the said Resolution Annex. 7 dated 5. 3. 2004 passed by the respondent No. 2 RTA granting permits on the route in question in favour of the respondents No. 3 and 4, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. In this writ petition,the petitioner has challenged the impugned Resolution Annex. 7 on various grounds and the mains grounds are as follows:- (i) That in the motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1988") and in the agreement Annex. 1, there is no provision for reservation of permits in favour of Ex- serviceman and also in favour of the persons belonging to scheduled caste or Scheduled Tribe category nor there is any provision to give preference to them while granting permits and therefore, granting of permits on the route in question in favour of the respondent No. 3 Bharat Singh being Ex-service man and respondent No. 4 Subesingh being member of scheduled caste category is per se illegal and without jurisdiction and thus, impugned Resolution Annex. 7 cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed and set aside. (ii) That procedure of Regional Transport Authority in considering the application for stage carriage permit has been laid down in Section 71 of the Act of 1988 and the provisions of Section 71 of the Act of 1988 are only meant for stage carriage permit for city routes and not for inter-state route. Furthermore, no doubt in Section 71 (3) (b) and 71 (3) (d) (iii) of the Act of 1988 reservation has been provided in favour of the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes category and also in favour of Ex-serviceman respectively, but since the provisions of Section 71 of the Act of 1988 are applicable for grant of stage carriage permit for city routes and not for inter- state route and in the present case, the stage carriage permits were to be granted for inter-state route in question, therefore, provisions of Section 71 of the Act of 1988 are not applicable to the present case. Hence, granting of permits in favour of the respondents No. 3 and 4 on the grounds of being Ex-serviceman and members of the Scheduled Caste category respectively through impugned Resolution Annex. 7 is wholly arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondent No. 4 and two preliminary objections about the maintainability of the writ petition have been taken in the following manner:- (i) That the petitioner had disclosed that he is resident of Bhangarh Teshil Bhadra District Hanumangarh and as per the provisions of Section 69 of the Act of 1988, he was not competent to apply for the route in question because he was not resident of Sikar District. (ii) That in para 15 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that he was filing writ petition because he had no other equally efficacious alternative remedy, but, this part of his statement is wrong because the impugned Resolution/order Annex. 7 is applicable under the provisions of Section 89 of the Act of 1988 and appeal lies before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. From this point of view also, since statutory alternative remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner and the same has not been available by the petitioner, therefore, this writ petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. Apart from the above, it has been further submitted by the respondent No. 4 that the provisions of Section 71 of the Act of 1988 are also applicable for grant of stage carriage permits for inter-state route. A similar reply was also filed by the respondent No. 3.

(3.) THUS, there is not dispute on the point that the respondents No. 3 and 4 were granted permits on priority basis on the ground of being Ex-service man and member of the Scheduled Caste category respectively.