HANUMAN RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Hanuman Ram, describing himself as resident of village Nandia Prabhawati, being holder of a driving licence to drive heavy vehicles, at present being a driver at a truck of one Chokha Ram, and allegedly sharing business with him; has submitted this writ petition with the averments about location of his village enroute Jodhpur-Bhopalgarh-Asop-Mundwa-Kuchera- Khajwana-Merta City-Pipar City-Gaguda existing amalgamated route and about the difficulties of the traveling public because of reduction of daily services by the State Road Transport Corporation on the route. According to the petitioner, one Ram Vilas, an erstwhile permit holder on Merta City to Baori route, met him on 26.02.2006 and informed that the transport services on Merta City to Baori route have deteriorated after it was notified; and now it was the turn of Jodhpur-Bhopalgarh amalgamated route (to be notified) for which a proposal has been published. The petitioner has alleged that upon enquires he came to know about publication of notification dated 12.09.2005 on the proposal regarding Jodhpur-Bhopalgarh scheme and that the government has invited objections from the persons aggrieved within a period of thirty days from the date of publication of notification. The petitioner preferred objections, allegedly after taking legal advice, but the Secretary to the Government in Transport Department rejected such objections as incompetent by the order dated 27.03.2006 (Annex.6).

(2.) Aggrieved, the petitioner has submitted this writ petition seeking the reliefs that Rule 6.3 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Rules, 1990 (the Rules for short), may be declared void; the notification dated 12.09.2005 and the impugned order dated 27.03.2006 may be quashed; and it be held that the petitioner is any person entitled to prefer objections under sub-section (1) of S.100 of

(3.) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act of 1988 for short). It appears that objections were submitted by the petitioner before the Secretary with the submissions that Rule 6.3 of the Rules limiting the objections to be filed only by the person affected by the scheme, is contrary to Section 100 (1) of the Act of 1988 which provides that objections could be submitted by any person. The learned Secretary dealt with the objections and held that there was no inconsistency in the provisions of the Rules and the Act of 1988 and the expression any person directly refers to an affected person and not a stranger. It was found that the petitioner did not submit the objections within thirty days of the date of publication of the notification and hence, the objections were rejected.