RAMESHWAR LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of D. B. Special Appeals Nos. 105 of 1986, 106 of 1986. 760 of 1986, 836 of 1986, 845 of 1986, 882 of 1986, 883 of 1986, 884 of 1986 and 910 of 1986, all of which involve for decision of common question of law.

(2.) THE main question is about the applicability of Section 47 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to empower the Regional Transport Authority to fix the optimum strength while acting under sub-section (1-A) of Section 68-F of the Act as amended in its application to the State of Rajasthan. THE real point is the effect of omission of the words 'if it is satisfied that it is necessary to increase, in the public interest, the number of vehicles operating in such area or route or portion thereof,' from sub-section (l-A)of Section 68-F of the Act by the State amendment made in Rajasthan. THE question is whether even after this amendment the authority is empowered to fix the optimum strength by invoking the power under Section 47 (3) of the Act. THE learned Single Judge has taken the view that the provision of Section 47 (3) of the Act has to be read within Section 68-F (1-A) notwithstanding the State amendment made in Rajasthan. A bunch of writ petitions have been disposed of by the learned Single Judge by a common order taking this view. In these appeals before us, the view taken by the learned Single Judge has been challenged.

(3.) IT has clearly held in Sobhraj Odharmal v. The State of Rajasthan (2) while dealing with the scope of sub-section (I) of Section 68-F that a statutory duty is imposed upon the Regional Transport Authority to grant permits to the State of Transport Undertaking, if an application is made in that behalf pursuant to an approved scheme and to such an application the provisions contained in Chapter IV such as Sections 47, 48, 57 and allied sections will not apply. This was reiterated placing reliance on an earlier decision of the Supreme Court. IT is, therefore, clear that in applicability of the provisions contained in Chapter IV such as Sections 47, 48 and 57 etc. to Section 68-F unless provided otherwise is the ordinary inference and the requirements of Section 47 etc. contained in Chapter IV are not to be readily invoked thereunder. The same effect of not invoking the provisions of Chapter IV while dealing with Section 68-F appears from C. S. Rowjee represented by power of Attorney holder Sr. C. Apparao Rowjee v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (3 ).