BHANWAR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this appeal lie in a narrow compass. Appellant Singh holds one contract carriage for the whole of Rajasthan being P.Co.P.1716 of 1983. According to him, he is entitled to ply buses against the aforesaid permit in the whole of Rajasthan. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (R. S.R. T. C.) is running stage carriages on a number of routes, State as well as inter-Statal. With the introduction of Chapter 4A in the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter called 'the Act'), a large number of schemes for stage carriages as well as contract carriages for various routes in Rajasthan have been approved and notified. It is alleged that the Corporation has not implemented these schemes in spite of the fact that a period of more than 29 years has elapsed since the coming into force of the aforesaid schemes. For Jodhpur region itself, there was a scope of 200 contract carriage permits yet the R. S.R. T. C. did not obtain a single contract carriage permit against the aforesaid scope. The case of the appellant is that R. S.R. T. C. is interfering with the appellant's plying of the contract carriages on the various nationalised routes, even though appellant is entitled as of right to ply his buses such nationalised routes against the said permit.

(2.) On the basis of the aforesaid contentions, the appellant instituted S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2474/ 85 in this Court, inter alia, praying for a writ of prohibition directing the R. S.R. T. C. not to implement the schemes of contract carriages duly approved and notified, right from the year 1956 up to date. In addition, it prayed for quashing of Notification Annexure P / 7 dated 12-5-73 whereby certain officials of the R. S.R. T.C. were authorised to exercise powers u/s. 129 A of the Act.

(3.) The writ petition was opposed by the R. S.R. T. C. which pleaded that after schemes of nationalisation of various routes were passed, the appellant-petitioner was not entitled to ply any bus on a route covered by a scheme approved u/s. 68(D)(3) of the Act. It was denied that the Corporation had not implemented the various schemes, which had been duly approved. It was submitted that the Corporation had in fact implemented the schemes regarding contract carriages. It has been in fact providing contract carriage services by vehicles having stage carriage permits so far as the notified routes are concerned. It was submitted that whenever there was a demand for a vehicle to be provided to a point which does not lie on a notified route, the Corporation was obtaining contract carriage permits for the unnotified portion of the route for the purpose of providing contract carriage service from a point which lies on a notified route to the other point. It was submitted that the Corporation had obtained 31 contract carriage permits under which it was entitled to provide contract carriage service. It was submitted that it was not necessary for the Corporation to obtain contract carriage permit against scope of 200 contract carriage permits in the aforesaid circumstances.