NARENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These 3 intra-court appeals (SAW Nos.116/2008, 41/2008 and 42/2008), filed respectively by the writ petitioner and by the respondents Nos.5 and 4 of CWP No.5646/2005 against the same order dated 21.01.2008, have been considered together; and are taken up for disposal by this common judgment.

(2.) After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record with reference to the law applicable, we have formed an opinion that S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5646/2005 deserves to be restored for reconsideration of the learned Single Judge of this Court on the merits of the case. As the matter is proposed to be restored to the file of the writ Court, not much of dilatation on the chequred history and background aspects of the matter appears necessary. Only a brief reference to the relevant facts and background aspects would suffice.

(3.) The matter relates to grant of permits on Inter-State route 'Rajgarh to Hissar via Jhumpa' under the Inter-State agreement dated 09.07.1997, entered into between the State of Rajasthan and the State of Haryana. Under the said agreement, 5 permits could have been granted by the State of Rajasthan. Earlier, such 5 permits came to be granted but then, 2 of them, as granted in favour of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation ('the Corporation') came to be cancelled after they were put to challenge. There had been a spate of litigation in relation to the vacancies so created but the ultimate position had been that such vacancies of 2 permits with 4 return trips were ordered to be re-advertised. After readvertisement, several applicants came up before the concerned Regional Transport Authority ('RTA'), who proceeded to grant 4 permits, of single trip each, to 4 of the applicants, namely Shri Narendra Kumar (Appellant of SAW No.116/2008 - the writpetitioner), Shri Subey Singh (Appellant of SAW No.41/2008), Shri Bharat Singh (Appellant of SAW No.42/2008) and one Shri Rishi Kumar. Neither the said 4 grantees nor the other applicants were satisfied with the order so passed by RTA, granting 4 permits of one single trip each as against the vacancies of 2 permits of 4 return trips. Thus, the grantees as also the other applicants questioned the order so passed by RTA; and in this manner, 10 appeals came to be preferred before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal ('STAT'), which were dealt with and decided together by the common impugned order dated 29.07.2005.