MALIK RAM KALRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Malik Ram Kalra was anexisting operator on the Jhunjhunu-Delhi (via Pilani) inter-State route when a scheme of the State transport undertaking for providing road transport service from Jaipur to Pilani, hereinafter referred to as the Scheme, was approved. He felt aggrieved because his route was overlapped by the Jaipur-Pilani route from Jhunjhunu to Pilani and the Scheme was of complete exclusion of all other persons. He filed his objections before the Joint Legal Remembrancer, but without success. He then filed a writ petition in this Court, but it was dismissed by a judgment of a learned Single Judge dated August 22, 1974. He has therefore filed the present special appeal on a number of grounds. The learned counsel for the appellant has however urged five points for our consideration and we shall examine them one by one.

(2.) IT has been argued by Mr. Vyas appearing on behalf of the appellant that the Scheme was illegal inasmuch as it was published without the prior approval of the Administrator of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and contravened S. 68c of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter referred to as the Act. IT has been urged that a perusal of annexures P/7 and P/8 shows that the Administrator did not, at any rate, form any opinion about the preparation of the scheme We find that the learned Single Judge, before whom the point was raised for consideration in the first instance, has examined it, and has given his reasons for taking the view that it was not tenable. We are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. IT may be mentioned that we have, as a matter of abundant caution, gone through the original file in the presence of the learned counsel for the appellant, and have found, on an examination of paragraphs 28, 29, 30 and 33 of the notes that the Administrator gave his approval to the scheme, alongwith some other schemes, on September 25, 1972. We have no doubt, therefore, that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is correct and does not call for any interference.

(3.) IT has lastly been argued that as the appellant was an existing operator on the Jhunjhunu-Delhi inter-State route, the powers conferred on the State Government under Chapter IV-A of the Act were, by virtue of sec. 68-J of the Act, exercisable only by the Central Government and not by the State Government, and that, in the absence of any order of the Central Government, the appellant was entitled to operate on the Jhunjhunu-Delhi inter-State route. IT has been urged that the decisions in Nilkanth Prasad vs. State of Bihar (6), S. Abdul Khader Saheb vs. Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal (8) and Ch. Khazan Singh etc. vs. State of U. P. (9), on which reliance has been placed by the learned Single Judge, have no bearing on the controversy as they were rendered before the insertion of sec. 68-J of the amending Act of 1969.