PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the notification of the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur dated 31 -10 -1985, published in Part VII of the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated 14 -11 -1987 in respect of allowing extension of Jodhpur - -Dhundhara - -Bhadrajun - -Ahore - -Sayala - -Jalore amalgamated route by having inclusion of villages Sukarlai Muliawas - -Raoji -ki -Dhani and Roopwas be quashed It was also prayed that the Regional Transport Authority may be restrained from considering the inclusion of these villages in the aforesaid amalgamated route.

(2.) THE brief facts which are relevant for the convenient disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner holds a non -temporary stage carriage route being the transferee of Mohan Lal son of Shri Ghewar Singh resident of Sojat City. There is another route: Jodhpur - -Dhundhara - -Bhadrajun - -Ahore - -Sayala - -Jalore amalgamated route having a scope of 14 stage carriage to perform six trips. The Existing Operators of the Jodhpur -Dhundhara -Bhadrajun -Ahore -Sayala - -Jalore amalgamated route submitted application for the extension of the said route by including the village before the Regional Transport Authority Jodhpur. The applications were published in the Rajasthan Rajpa ra dated 14 -11 -1985 under the signatures of Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur for inviting objections under Section, 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act (here in after referred to 'the Act') within 30 days from the date of publication in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. The extended route overlaps the route of the petitioner. The petitioner and other operators of the petitioner's route namely, Pali -Gelawas - -Dhundhara - -Manjal have also submitted the applications for inclusion in their route of village Mooliawas, Kukarlai and Pucca portion of Jetpur to Mandawas before the Regional Transport Authority As result, the operators of Jodhpur -Dhundhara - -Bhadrajun - -Ahore - -Sayal -Jalore amalgamated route would materially overlap the petitioner's route. Therefore, the petitioner submitted that he was highly aggrieved for Therefore, the petitioner submitted that he was highly aggrieved for opposing the applications of the operators of the aforesaid route. It is alleged that when the present permit was tran ferred to him by Shri Mohan Lal he informed about the publication of the notification dated 14 -11 -1985. There after, he made enquiries and came to know that the Gazette Notification dated 14 -11 -1985 was never issued and despatched before 3 -12 -1985. Since this notification did not see the light of the day before 3 -12 -1985, therefore, it is bad in law as the objectors could not get a clear 30 days time to file objections under Section 57(3) of the Act. Thus, the petitioner approached this court by filing the present writ petition and praying that in view of the decisions given in Yadu Raj Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 1987(1) WLN 304 the present notificat on for inclusion of the villages on the request of the operators of Jodhpur -Dhundhara -Bhadrajun -Ahore -Sayal - -Jalore amalgamated route is bad and, therefore, this notification should be quashed and the Regional Transport Authority should be restrained from proceeding in the matter.

(3.) FROM this it is clear that the petitioner as transferee of Mohan Lal had already filed objections before the Regional Transport Authority against the publication of the applications of the applicants for inclusion of villages in their route as such it is not open for the petitioner now to challenge that notification which was issued on 14 -11 -1985 being bad as clear 30 days time was not available to the objectors under Section 57(3) of the Act.