- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 862 of 2007 JODHPUR CITY BUS OWNERS UNION & ANR V/S STATE & ORS. Mr. GIRISH JOSHI, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. NM LODHA,AAG, for the respondent Date of Order : 22.1.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI DEO NARAYAN THANVI,J. ORDER ----- By this appeal the appellant seeks to challenge the order of the learned Single Judge dated 30.4.2004, dismissing the writ petition summarily. By the impugned order, 4 writ petitions were dismissed, two relating to Udaipur, and two relating to Jodhpur. However, we are told, that no appeals have been filed in the other three matters. Be that as it may. Very long drawn arguments were made, obviously as the judgment of learned Single Judge also is running into as many as 63 pages. However, we take care not to get confused. - 2 - A look at the prayer clause in the writ petition shows, that the prayers made are; firstly to quash and set aside the order dated 4.11.2006, (Annex.4) by which six routes were opened; secondly to quash and set aside the order dated 12.12.2006 (Annex.10). Then a declaration is prayed to the effect that no monopoly can be created by the Jodhpur City Transport Service Limited. Then it is prayed that a declaration be also made that so called bus “rapid transport system” cannot be made effective in the city like Jodhpur as there exists no road infrastructure, on which the buses shown in tender notice can be plied. Then a declaration is claimed that since the Regional Transport Officer is Director, as such he is beneficiary and therefore, no permit can be issued to Jodhpur City Transport Service Limited (respondent No.6). Then the next prayer is that the Regional Transport Authority and Secretary to Regional Transport Authority be directed not to issue any permit in favour of Jodhpur City Transport Service Limited, or any of its agent, or to respondent No.7, or any other respondent, in whose favour the tender has been accepted, and if any permits are issued, then the same may be quashed and set aside. Though some other prayers are also made, but they are, in substance repetitive. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at a - 3 - great length, virtually the whole day, and having gone through the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, at the outset, we may observe, that we are at one, with the findings, recorded on different aspects, by the learned Single Judge, and we need not repeat all those findings over again. In addition, we may also proceed to consider each of the prayers made by the petitioner, in the writ petition. On so considering the prayers, what we find is, that so far Annex.4 is concerned, that is only an order, opening new routes, and is issued by the State Government, for which it is very much competent under Section 68(3)(ca) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Obviously, therefore, since by Annex.4, only 6 routes have been opened, without specifying the number of vehicles to be plied, and number of services to be provided; this type of opening of the routes can provide no grievance to the petitioner. Then so far prayer for quashing Annex.10 is concerned, that is only an order, issued by the State Government, laying down guidelines for formation of certain companies, for certain cities, with certain purposes, and it is specifically stipulated, that such companies are to be registered under the provisions of Indian Companies Act, 1956, with 50:50 equity participation of the local bodies. It is further stipulated therein, that the company will neither own the buses, nor will be having any fixed liability, they will not be allowed to engage any - 4 - staff on permanent basis, and will not attract any liability in financial terms. It will not purchase any equipments/buses, nor run any services itself. In such circumstances, this order also cannot be said to furnish any ground to the petitioner to challenge it, and therefore, it need not be quashed. Then regarding the next prayer, about declaration, that no monopoly can be created by the Jodhpur City Transport Service Limited, it is not the case of the respondent No.6 either, or even of other respondents, that any monopoly is created. However, it is clarified that no monopoly is created in favour of Jodhpur City Transport Service Limited. Then coming to the next prayer, about non-feasibility of making effective the “rapid transport system” in Jodhpur, in our view, there are no sufficient pleading, or material, in this regard on record, apart from the fact, that whatever little pleadings have been taken in ground (xi) of the writ petition, that have been sufficiently replied by the respondents. Then the writ petition, as filed, was not filed as a Public Interest Litigation. The petitioner is a union, and the bus operators have no right to raise such type of grievance by invoking Article 226 jurisdiction of this Court. Then regarding declaration, that no permit can be issued to respondent No.6, it would suffice to say, that even according to Annex.10, the respondent No.6 is not to obtain any permit, nor to operate any bus, nor to own any - 5 - bus, therefore, this prayer is also futile. So far as grant of permit in favour of respondent No.7, or its entitlement to get permit, is concerned, the grant of permit is a matter, against which a regular appeal is maintainable under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, as such, if there is, or was, any error, or illegality, in the grant of permit to respondent No.7, the petitioner-appellant could have sought appropriate remedy. Thus, on the face of it, we do not find any ground to grant any of the reliefs claimed in the writ petition. That being the position, and since we find ourselves in perfect agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, we do not find any ground to entertain the appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed summarily. ( DEO NARAYAN THANVI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J.