PRAMOD SINGH SISODIYA S/O SHRI DAYAL SINGH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O HAZI MOHALLA BARODA, SHEOPUR (M.P.) Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER TRANSPORT, PARIVAHAN BHAWAN, SAHAKAR MARG, JAIPUR (RAJ.)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this writ petition for a direction to the respondents to counter sign the permit No. 1496/STA/STAGE/14(I) and SCP No. 051346/STA/STG/20 valid up to 14.10.2019 for Jhansi to Jaipur via Sheopur Kalan route and permit the petitioner to ply the bus on the basis of permit held by him. Further prayer is made for restraining the respondents from interfering with the plying of the vehicle by the petitioner over the route in question from the bus stands maintained by the State Transport Department in the State of Rajasthan.

(2.) It is contended that the petitioner is registered owner of the vehicle No. RJ-20-PB-0108 Model 2012 with a seating capacity of 52 in all. The State Transport Authority, Gwalior, vide order dated 10.10.2014, granted one non-temporary stage carriage permit to the petitioner for Jhansi to Jaipur via Sheopur route within the scope fixed under the agreement dated 21.08.2007 entered into between the State of Rajasthan and State of M.P. It was also agreed that due to some part of it lying in the State of U.P., this was included in the agreement with the State of U.P. The Secretary, RTA, Gwalior, issued recommendation letter to its counter part in the State of Rajasthan recommending grant of counter signature in favour of petitioner. Petitioner accordingly approached the authority concerned in the State of Rajasthan but the said authority failed to counter sign the same despite depositing the requisite fee by the petitioner in the month of December, 2014. Thereafter, the petitioner again deposited fees on 31.05.2016 for counter signature and submitted relevant papers. It is further contended that the agreement provides for scope of 6:6 in favour of operators of the State of M.P. Under the agreement itself, the de-notification of the route in question has been mentioned but still the respondents are not de-notifying the route in question and petitioner being a nominee of the State of M.P., has right to get counter signature on the permit, which has been rightly issued by the State of M.P.

(3.) Learned Additional Government Counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the writ petition by filing reply thereto.