SBCWP NO.115/09. SBCWP NO.116/09. SBCWP NO.117/09. SBCWP NO.118/09. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR O R D E R 1) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.115/2009. Vijay Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.116/2009. Radhey Shyam Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 3) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.117/2009. Mange Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 4) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.118/2009. Omprakash Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of order:- May 1, 2009. Hon'ble Mr.Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri K.C. Sharma for the petitioners. Shri Zakir Hussain, Additional Government Counsel. **** BY THE COURT:- The sole controversy in all these petitions is that whether petitioners whose SBCWP NO.115/09. SBCWP NO.116/09. SBCWP NO.117/09. SBCWP NO.118/09. 2 vehicles had become due for renewal of Permit, can be allowed to run such vehicles being the models of year 2000. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (STAT) submitted that the STAT in respect of Sunita Hooda and Mahesh Chand held that new vehicles can be allowed to be replaced by new vehicle of higher model whereas in the case of petitioners, it has taken a contrary view that vehicles of the petitioners should not be older than five years. Learned counsel for the petitioners while referring to clause 11 of the notification submitted that as per that clause, it was decided that no vehicle covered by any permit shall be older than ten years from the date of its initial registration. As per Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, such period for a vehicle has been restricted only upto 12 years. Onerous condition of requiring petitioners to ply a vehicle not more than five years old is SBCWP NO.115/09. SBCWP NO.116/09. SBCWP NO.117/09. SBCWP NO.118/09. 3 wholly illegal. 3) Learned Additional Government Counsel submits that the STAT imposed ban because vehicles plied by the petitioners were of 2000 models and that within one year, they are approaching to the limit of ten years, therefore such permits cannot be renewed. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioners has rejoined and submitted that petitioners would undertake before the Regional Transport Authority Bikaner to replace their vehicles before they become older than 10 years and that still one year also has been left to reach that stage. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Smt.Shakuntala Devi Vs. The Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur & Ors. : 1970 WLN 45 to argue that no such condition which is not envisaged in the laws can be imposed by the Regional Transport Authority. 5) In this view of the matter, all these writ petitions are disposed of with direction SBCWP NO.115/09. SBCWP NO.116/09. SBCWP NO.117/09. SBCWP NO.118/09. 4 to the petitioners to file an Undertaking before the Regional Transport Authority Bikaner to the effect that they would replace their vehicles so soon before their model become 10 years old. In the meantime, however, respondents shall permit the petitioners to ply the vehicles. In the event of petitioners failure to replace vehicles on expiry of 10 years as aforestated or if the petitioners are not able to comply with the order, they would be liable to be dealt with by the authorities in accordance with law. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil