1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FORRAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1010/1997 RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, BIKANER DATE OF ORDER 23.01.2008 PRESENT HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. R.K.Lohra for the petitioner. Mr. Alkesh Agarwal, Dy. Govt. Counsel. In spite of service no one appears on behalf of respondent No.2. This writ petition is filed by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short “the Corporation) challenging the order dated 20.07.93 passed by the State Transport Appellate Authority (for short STAT) whereby their revision petition filed against grant of two permits to the respondent No.2 for the routes of Bikaner-Churu via Doongargarh, and Ratangarh to Rawatsar via Sardarsahar, Pallu was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that STAT has acted contrary to law by ignoring actual length of the part of the route granted under the aforesaid permits which over lap with the nationalised/notified routes. Reference in this connection was made to notification of the Government dated 05.01.73 and 03.10.73 notifying the two aforesaid routes in scheme approved under Section 68 C and and 68 D of the Motor 2 Vehicles Act, 1939. Learned counsel argued that the STAT by replying on the notifications of the Government dated 03.08.76 and 14.4.79 which provided for exclusion of the maximum length of 10 Kms of the area of over lapping with the nationalised/notified route has wrongly passed its decision basing its conclusions merely on the survey report prepared by the District Transport Officer on applications received on behalf of the respondent No.2. It is argued that actual distance of the portion over lapping with the nationalised route is much more than what has been accepted by the learned STAT. In fact, the portion over lapping on the nationalised route for the permit of Ratangarh-Rawatsar is measuring 24 Kms, whereas the learned STAT has accepted this to be only 10 Kms for the nationalised route of Ratangarh to Rawatsar via Sardar Shahar the actual over lapping of the route of which permit has been granted is 18 Kms which too has been taken for only 10 Kms by the STAT. It is argued that the STAT has thus erred in not correctly appreciating the material on record and has rather misapplied the notification dated 03.08.76 and 14.04.79. It was argued that this Court in RSRTC Vs. Regional Transport Authority & Ors. 1999 (1) WLC (Raj.) 99 has in somewhat of similar circumstances held that the grant of permit of route over lapping with the nationalised route adversely affects interest of the Corporation and therefore, it was entitled to an opportunity of hearing when permit is so granted. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that a fresh survey was required to be conducted associating the representatives of the petitioner Corporation so as to find out 3 what is the exact length over lapping. On the other hand, learned Dy.Govt. Counsel opposed the petition and argued that conclusions arrived at by STAT are based on correct appreciation of the material available on record including the survey report. In view of the above mentioned notifications issued under Section 102 of the Motor Vehicles Act, over lapping to the extent of not exceeding 10 Kms was permissible with the condition that the permit holders shall not pick up or set down passengers on such overlapped portions. The STAT has passed a considered and comprehensive order which does not warrant any interference by this Court. I have bestowed my earnest consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. On examination, it transpires that the STAT has based its order singularly on the survey report prepared by the District Transport Officer . As against the distance of 24 Kms of overlapped portion claimed by the petitioner Corporation on the Bikaner-Churu nationalised routes, the difference that has been found, there with by the STAT in is enormous when it has accepted the total over lapping portion on just 10 Kms. W hile the petitioner contended that distance between the Ratangarh- Gaurishanker is as much as 18 Kms, the STAT has believed the version of the respondents that it is only 10 Kms, out of which, one Km is the area 4 falling within the Municipal limits. According to the petitioner, similarly, the distance between Ratangarh-Hudera is 6 Kms whereas in the survey report it was stated to be only 4 Kms, out of which the STAT has excluded 3 Kms describing the same as a 'C' Category road. Thus only 10 Kms was found to be covering the nationalised route. The STAT therefore, concluded that the length of overlapping for the nationalised routes in both the permits is less than 10 Kms which according to the Government notification referred to above was exempted. Considering the judgment in entirety and the length of over lapped part claimed by the petitioner in both the cases, I find that STAT has completely discarded the version of the petitioner in preference to the survey report and that too has been substantially reduced for citing reasons such as that part of it is covered by 'C' Category road and also falling in municipal limits. This Court in the judgment cited by the counsel for the petitioner on consideration of the relevant law held that grant of permit of route overlapping the part of notified route affects the interest of RSRTC and it is entitled to an opportunity of hearing when a permit is so granted. Notifications dated 3.8.76 and 14.4.79 of course permit the overlapping of 10 Kms in respect of each of the notified routes. At the same time, there cannot be such an enormous disparity between the length of overlapped portion as indicated in survey report and the one which is claimed by the Corporation. The petitioner Corporation also being a statutory body, the 5 STAT should have, instead of straightway believing the version of the respondents, called for fresh survey before finally arriving at the correctness or the otherwise of the version contained in the survey report. The permits in the present case also have been issued to the private respondent without any opportunity of hearing being provided to the petitioner and, therefore, the length of overlapped portion as mentioned said in the permit taken from such report could not form the solitary basis for the STAT to reject the contentions raised by the petitioner Corporation. In view of the discussions made above, I therefore, allow the present writ petition. Impugned order dated 20.07.1993 order passed by the learned State Transport Appellate Authority is set aside as the matter is remanded back to it for fresh consideration in the light of the discussion made above. Eventually if the STAT upon it for fresh consideration hold the extent of over lapping in either of the permits exceeding the limit of 10 Kms, third permit issued to respondent No.2 in respect of one of there routes vide Annexure 7 would also be reconsidered provided the petitioner. Corporation files a duly constituted revision petition against the said permit before the STAT now within 60 days from the receipt of the date of certified copy of this judgment. (Mohammed Rafiq), J. mamta