ABDUL RASHID Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - By this writ petition a challenge has been made to the order dated 31.3.2009 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal'). A further prayer has been made seeking declaration that petitioners' permits for Begun to Rawatbhata route are saved by virtue of Clause-4 of reciprocal transport agreement between the State of Rajasthan and State of Madhya Pradesh.

(2.) Petitioners state that they were holding non-temporary stage carriage permit of inter-state route Begun to Rawatbhata via Singoli from the year 1977, In the year 1975, reciprocal agreement was made between State of Rajasthan and State of Madhya Pradesh pursuant to Sec. 63 of the Central Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Old Act'). In the said reciprocal agreement, two routes were existing namely Chittorgarh to Bhensaroadgarh via Singoli and Bhilwara to Bhensaroadgarh via Singoli. In the year 1976, State of Rajasthan approved and implemented scheme of nationalisation due to which the route Chittorgarh to Bhensaroadgarh was curtailed on its portion from Chittorgarh to Balwant Nagar. It is stated that residuary route remained from Balwant Nagar to Bhensaroadgarh and from Bhilwara to Bhensaroadgarh. It is contended by the petitioners that on 27.9.1977 a route namely Begun to Rawatbhata came into existence taking note of two residuary routes after curtailment. The curtailment/extension of the route was endorsed in the respective permit of the petitioners and accordingly, the petitioners started holding permit for Begun to Rawatbhata route from the year 1977. The permits were renewed on six different occasions. In the year 1989, Old Act was replaced by Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the New Act'). The new Act saved all the permits granted and renewed under the Old Act. After coming into the operation of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988'), the petitioners continued to operate on Begun to Rawatbhata route. In the year 2001, State of Rajasthan and State of Madhya Pradesh again entered into an agreement which became effective since 26.7.2001. In the aforesaid agreement, it was agreed by both the States that stage carriage permits counter-signed by either State prior to agreement shall be valid till their validity. In the aforesaid agreement, Begun to Rawatbhata route was mentioned in Annexure-B showing it to be notified route whereas this route was not notified for nationalisation under the Act of 1988 granting monopoly to the State Transport Undertakings, thus a representation was made and realising the mistake, supplementary reciprocal agreement was made and published on 17.7.2003 in the State of Rajasthan and in the State of Madhya Pradesh on 24.12.2003. The route in dispute was added in Annexure-A1. In view of the revised reciprocal transport agreement between the two states, the Regional Transport Authority, Chittorgarh considered the application for grant of route in dispute wherein according to the petitioners, ten vacancies were filled up by the existing permit holders. The R.T.O. granted five non-temporary stage carriage permits for remaining five vacancies. Aggrieved by the grant of five new permits, one Radheyshyam Teli filed an appeal challenging resolution dated 19.9.2003. Five permit holders were arrayed as party respondents in the said appeal. Similar appeals were filed by others also. Those appeals were allowed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 15.12.2005. In the aforesaid order, a direction was also given against the petitioners beyond the prayer made in the appeal and thereby without there being a challenge of the petitioners' permit, a direction was given against them. The order was challenged by the petitioners before this Court, which set aside the order vide judgment dated 3.12.2008. The case was remanded back to Tribunal for its decision afresh after providing opportunity of hearing.

(3.) The order of the Tribunal was further challenged by the new permit holders. Petitioners state that out of five new permit holders, Abdul Rashid and others approached the High Court, but their writ petitions were dismissed vide order dated 23.10.2007 followed by appeal and dismissal thereupon on 5.11.2007. An SLP was also preferred by them without any success. The petitioners herein also preferred SLP directly against the judgment of Single Bench as well as of Division Bench though they were not party therein. Those SLPs were decided by the Honourable Apex Court vide its order dated 28.3.2007. The Honourable Apex Court gave liberty to the petitioners to raise all their objections before the appropriate forum and with that observation leave sought by the petitioners was not entertained. Since the writ petition of the petitioners was pending against the order of the Tribunal, thus they raised their objections therein and ultimately said writ petition was allowed on 3.12.2008 remanding the case to the Tribunal.