RADHEY SHYAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant special appeal is directed against the order dated 14-11-2003 passed by the learned single Judge, dismissing the writ petition.

(2.) The controversy in the instant special appeal pertains to grant of inter-State route permit i.e. Bhadra to Hisar via Adampur. It is averred that in the year 1968, the State of Rajasthan and the State of Haryana entered into reciprocal transport agreement, which came into force on 1-4-1968 in respect of the inter-State route, whereby, it was agreed that the nominees of Rajasthan would operate daily 8 return services. In pursuant to it, permits were granted on the said route. A fresh reciprocal transport agreement was entered into between the two States on 9-7-1997. which came to be published in the Rajasthan Gazette on 15-7-1997 and in a local newspaper namely 'Rajasthan Patrika' on 22-7-1997. The appellant submitted an application on 21-7-1997 for grant of permit on the said route. The Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner rejected the application by order dated 25-4-1998 for want of any vacancy. The matter was carried unsuccessfully by the appellant to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur. The Tribunal by judgment dated 29-8-2000 held that the appellant's application was premature inasmuch as, the application was submitted before the agreement between the two States came into force by publication in the local newspaper i.e. on 22-7-1997. The appellant further carried the matter in writ petition before this Court. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and remitted the matter to the R. T.A. for fresh consideration. The R. T. A. considered the application of the appellant along with the other applications. The R. T. A. on fresh consideration of the application of the appellant and the other applicants resolved to grant permit on the said route in favour of the third respondent. The appellant's application was rejected on the ground of it being premature. The appellant approached to this Court in second round. The learned single Judge by the impugned order having found the appellant's application being premature, dismissed the writ petition.

(3.) It is submitted by Mr. B. L. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the appellant that the subject agreement was entered into in between the two States on 9-7-1997, which is the crucial date and not 22-7-1997 the date on which it was published in the Official Gazette on 15-7-1997 and in the local newspaper on 22-7-1997 (sic). It is further submitted that the learned single Judge has committed error in holding that'the counter-signatures cannot be seen in isolation from the grant of permit. Elaborating the contention, it is submitted that the permit on an inter-State route is granted by one State and it becomes effective on counter-signature. Thus, the making of an application after the two States entered into an agreement cannot be subjected to the publication of the notification under subsection (6) of Section 88 of the Act of 1988. It Is further submitted that the publication of an agreement is only a procedure in hand. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Advocate has supported the judgment of the learned single Judge.