GOPAL PUROHIT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the action of the Secretary, State Transport Authority (STA), Rajasthan Jaipur/Secretary, Regional Transport Authority(RTA), Jodhpur/Bikaner in permitting the extension of the route covered by permit granted in favour of the private respondents beyond the limit permissible under sub-section (3) of Section 80 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act").

(2.) The respondents, private operators, operating the buses on the strength of the State Carriage Permit granted on various routes, submitted applications for inclusion of the new routes in the existing routes covered by the permit. The applications were allowed by the STA/RTA and the inclusion as prayed for was granted. The details of the permits granted in favour of the private respondents, the original route, the length of the route, the extension granted by the STA/RTA may be summarised thus:

(3.) Precisely, the contention of the petitioners is that the respondents were operating their vehicles on the notified routes covered by notification dated 2.9.15 on the strength of the permits granted under the modified Scheme and thus, inclusion/extension of routes granted by the STA/RTA beyond the scope of the said notification is ex facie illegal inasmuch as, the extended routes are not provided under the notified Scheme. It is submitted that an application to vary the condition of the permits by inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area or by altering the route or routes or area covered by the permit or in case of a stage carriage permit by increasing the number of trips above the specified maximum or by the variation, extension or curtailment of the route or routes or the area specified in the permit is treated to be an application for grant of new permit, under the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 80 of the Act. Drawing the attention of the court to second proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 80, learned counsel submitted that in case of variation, the termini is not permissible to be altered and the distance covered by variation cannot exceed twenty-four kilometers. Similarly, in case of extension, the distance covered by extension shall not exceed twenty-four kilometers from the termini. That apart, before permitting the variation or extension within the limit specified as aforesaid, the Transport Authority must satisfy itself that such variation will serve the convenience of the public and that it is not expedient to grant a separate permit in respect of the original route as so varied or extended or any part thereof. It is submitted that in the instant case, not only the inclusions/extensions granted are beyond the permissible limit of twenty-four kilometers, the termini of the routes have also been altered and thus, the inclusions/extensions granted by the STA/RTA being apparently in contravention of proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 80, are without jurisdiction. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of this court in the matter of 'Ram Niwas and Anr. vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Ors.', 1993 (2) WLC (Raj.)262.