SARDAR MOHAMMED Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Sardar Mohammed had challenged the draft scheme published Under Section 68 -C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act of 1939') for the route Kishangarh to Sarwad on November 30, 1987.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as also Mr. Munshi appearing for non - petitioner No, 2.

(3.) HAVING given my careful consideration to the rival contention, I am, of the opinion that this contention cannot be accepted in the circumstances of this case. In the absence of any specific avernment to the effect that the gazette date. November 30, 1987 has not been despatched on that day, there cannot be any presumption that as a matter of fact, if had not been despatched on that day. The decision in R.S.R.T C v. Dau Dayal, referred to above, does not lay down that there is a presumption in law that the Gazette printed on a particular day cannot be deemed to have been despatched on that very day. This observation must be taken to have been made in respect of the specific avernment and evidence in the case. It cannot be separated from its context. There may be cases where sometime may lapse between printing and despatch of the Gazette, but it cannot always be necessarily so and there may be cases where a gazette may be despatched on the very day when it is published. In these circumstances, it was necessary for the petitioner to have made a specific avernment in the writ petition that the gazette printed on November 30, 1987 was not despatched on that day. He merely relies on the so called presumption said to have been raised in R.S.R.T.C. v. Daudayal. That is not the case here. My attention was particularly drawn by the learned Counsel to clause (viii) of ground 6 and it has been urged by him that there is specific allegation that the gazette dated November 30, 1987 was not despatched on that day and must have been despatched, much after November 30, 1987, but I am unable to accept this contention also because in this clause (viii) of para 6 of the grounds, the petitioner has started with the words - -'As stated above the publication of the aforesaid notification dated 30 -11 -87 is antidated because the date so printed is 30 -11 -1987 and the date of despatch from Jaipur is much after 30 -11 -1987.' This avernment, therefore, cannot be taken to mean to be an avernment to the effect that the Gazette was, as a matter of fact, not despatched on 30 -11 -1987 and the petitioner merely relies on the presumption already referred to above.