NATHAR MAL Vs. R T A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was granted renewal of a non -temporary stage carriage permit on Jaipur Diggi -Deoli amalgamated route. It appears that before the renewal was granted to the petitioner, the petitioner was plying the bus No. R(Sic)X 399 of 1958 model and the route is mixed 'A' and 'C' Class in nature, though in the petition it has been stated only a 'C' Class route, while granting the renewal of the permit on the aforesaid route to the petitioner, the R.T.A. under its Resolution No. 22, granted renewal to the petitioner subject to the condition that the petitioner will replace the bus of the prescribed model within three months. There is no dispute that the petitioner did not replace the vehicle within a period of three months as aforesaid. The petitioner applied to the R.T.A. It is not known whether he has applied within three months or thereafter, but the R.T.A. under its order dated 10 -10 -1986 (Annexure 3) extended the period by two months with a pre -emptory condition that if within the extended period the vehicle is not replaced by a prescribed model, the permit will stand revoked. Still the petitioner did not do it.

(2.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that he did not know about the above order. The petitioner again applied for extension of time but under order Annexure 5 dated 22 -1 -1987, in view of the pre -emptory condition imposed under Annexure 3 the application was rejected. The petitioner filed an appeal before the S.T.A.T., and secured an order of stay and was allowed to plny on the old model but ultimately on 15 -9 -1988, the appeal was not pressed and as such was dismissed.

(3.) CONTENTION of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that Rule 84 A is beyond powers of the State Government under Section 68 of the M.V. Act because a perusal of the aforesaid Sub -section (2) of Section 68 of the MV. Act will show that only rules can be framed by the State Government in respect of the matter enumerated in the various clauses. Perhaps the learned Counsel has lost sight of the words 'without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power' in Sub -section (1) of Section 68. Thus the power under subsection (1) of Section 68 of the M.V. Act is general and it will be clear that the State Government may make the rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Chapter. Therefore, it is in exercise of genera} power of making the rules that Rule 84A, which before us appears to be necessary for the purposes of carrying out the provisions of the Chapter for providing an efficient service, can be made. Therefore, we are of the opinion that not only while granting a permit but also while renewing the permit in accordance with general, specific direction of the S.T.A.T., the R.T.A. could have laid down a condition regarding model of the vehicle, therefore, the condition was rightly laid down and could be laid down.