1 2 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8565/2009 Mohd. Majid Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 4th September 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.S.P. Arora,for the petitioner. .... BY THE COURT By filing a revision petition in the month of February 2006 through an alleged power of attorney holder, the petitioner attempted to question the order dated 21.02.2005 as made by the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur, for grant of a permit on Merta City to Harsor route to the respondent No.4 essentially on the ground that the said route fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority, Ajmer and hence, the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur could not have granted such permit at all. The revision petition so filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajathan (STAT) by the impugned order dated 15.09.2008 essentially on the grounds that the valid power of attorney as required by the rules were not produced and, therefore, the revision petition could not be taken to have been filed by an authorised 2 person; and that the vehicle bearing number RJ 21 P 2299 had been plying on the permit in question ever since 04.03.2005 i.e., about 11 months before the date of filing of the revision petition and there was no sufficient cause stated for condoning the delay. Seeking to challenge the order aforesaid, the petitioner filed this writ petition on 18.12.2008 that remained on defect side for long and has been placed for admission only today after removal of defects on 01.09.2009. It is contended that the order as passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur was wholly without jurisdiction for the route in question, i.e., Merta City to Harsor, was exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Regional Transport Authority, Ajmer and thus, an entirely illegal and unauthorised permit ought to have been quashed and set aside. It is submitted that there was no such inordinate delay in filing the revision petition that was filed immediately after the knowledge about such permit particularly when the petitioner came to know about plying of such vehicle only on 04.02.2006. It is submitted that such kind of unauthorised order could have been set aside by the STAT even by taking cognizance of the matter suo motu; and the STAT has been unjustified in rejecting the revision petition. 3 On the submissions as made, no case is made out for interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court in the given fact situation. Though it appears that the document of alleged power of attorney was not filed before the STAT but then, it is noticed from the documents placed on record that the alleged power of attorney was executed on 05.06.2003 (Annex.-1 at page 21 of the paper-book) and the alleged power of attorney holder also stated in his affidavit in support of the application for condonatoin of delay (at page 38 of the paper-book) that he was having a power of attorney as given on 05.06.2003. The permit in question was issued on 21.02.2005 and the petitioner allegedly got the knowledge thereof on 04.02.2006. Obviously, the petitioner could not have extended any power of attorney in the year 2003 in relation to the permit in question and in relation to the cause stated before the STAT. The learned STAT cannot be said to have committed any error or illegality in finding the revision petition incompetent for having been filed by an unauthorised person. The STAT has also found the fact, with reference to the documents produced on record, that the vehicle was being plied on the permit in question ever since 04.03.2005. In the face of such facts, the STAT cannot be faulted in rejecting the 4 suggestion as made by the petitioner about his knowledge in the month of February 2006. It is also noticed that this writ petition has remained pending on the defect side for about nine months and the net result is that the permit in question, issued way back in the month of February 2005, has remained in existence and in operation for all these years. In the over all facts and circumstances of the case, there appears no justification to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. This writ petition stands rejected. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. s.soni