DALCHAND MENARIA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur by an order dt. 10.11.2004 renewed non -temporary stage carriage permit in favour of the petitioner for the route City Station Udaipur to Kailashpuri via Udaipol, Surajpol, Delhigate, Hathipol, Chetak Circle, Fatehpura Chauraha, Pula, Bhuwana, Sukhor etc. with a peremptory condition to obtain endorsement of the renewal within a period of 60 days from the date of the order i.e. 10.11.2004. According to the petitioner the order dt. 10.11.2004 was neither passed in his presence nor was communicated to him, thus, he failed to obtain endorsement of renewal within the period prescribed and on knowing about the order of renewal on 17.11.2005, an application was filed seeking endorsement, however, the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur rejected the same on 21.11.2005 being permit stood cancelled for non -compliance of the precondition. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur to assail validity, propriety and correctness of the order dt. 21.11.2005 but the Tribunal is not having posted with its judicial member from about a year, therefore, this petition for writ is preferred claiming the reliefs as follows:

(2.) THE contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the resolution granting permit to the petitioner had neither been communicated nor was it within the knowledge of the petitioner upto 17.11.2005, as such the petitioner was not at all in position to obtain endorsement within the period prescribed. It is urged that as per Rule 59 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1990") the Secretary/Executive Officer of the Regional Transport Authority is under an obligation to intimate the applicant within seven days from the date of the order of the Regional Transport Authority regarding grant or rejection of the application and in the instant matter no intimation was given to the petitioner, therefore, he was not aware about renewal with condition for obtaining endorsement on permit.

(3.) IN the present matter it is position admitted that no intimation was given to the petitioner as per provisions of Rule 5.9 of the Rules of 1990, as such in light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (supra) the order granting permit to the petitioner could not be held to be effective and, therefore, the same was erroneously treated cancelled by the respondent under the order impugned.