MOHAN SINGH Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a unique case wherein the petitioner has approached this Court for issuing direction to the respondents that they must act in accordance with law, though he has not established as what is his legal right which is likely to be infringed or what is the cause of action which has given him a right to approach this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) PETITIONER is holding a valid permanent stage-carriage permit on the route Jhunjhunu to Pabana via Pushkarni Chadi and Mukandgarh within the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur (hereinafter called "the R.T.A."). In the said Region, two routes, namely, Mundawa to Mukandgarh via Chadi, and Jaipur to Pilani via Nawalgarh have been notified under the provisions of Section 100 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as "the Act") or under the provisions of Section 68-D (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called" the old Act") and the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called, "the R.S.R.T.C.) has an exclusive right to ply its vehicles on the said routes. PETITIONER's grievance is that some persons are trying to get permits on the route Mandawa to Udaipurwati over-lapping the notified route from Mandawa to Mukandgarh via Chadi and also a portion of the route, on which he is plying his vehicle from Mukandgarh to Pabana, his rights will be adversely affected and there is imminent danger to his rights. It has been urged that the notified portion of the route from Chadi to Mukandgarh is 18 kms. and from Dudlod to Nawalgarh it is 12 Kms. and it is not permissible to grant any permit over-lapping the notified route over 10 Kms. under the law. It has further been urged that the R.T.A. is likely to consider the grant of permits by Circulation which is also prohibited by law and, thus, this Court must issue direction to the R.T.A. not to entertain any application for the grant of any permit on the route Mandawa to Udaipurwati. It may be pertinent to mention here that petitioner holds a permit on a non-notified route and he has no concern with any notified route.

(3.) IN fact, petitioner has espoused the cause of the respondent No.2 as if the respondent No.2 is unable to protect its interest. Whether persons, who had been permitted to ply their vehicles on a notified route with corridor restrictions, i.e. with a condition neither to pick-up nor drop any passenger on the over- lapping part of the notified route, can be permitted to approach the writ Court for violation of the Scheme has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Mithlesh Rani vs. R.T.A., Dehradun and Others (19) and the Court has observed as under :- "It is only the respondents No.3 and 4 who are operating on a route which partially over-laps the route concerned herein hat have chosen to come forward. We are not inclined to entertain the said objection at their instance, more particularly, when a copy of the Scheme (s) even has not been filed. This aspect would become relevant if and when the State Transport Authority undertakes objection to the grant of permit to the appellant and the approved scheme or the draft scheme, as the case may be, is placed before the Court in support of the said objection. IN the present state of facts we decline to go into the said question."