1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 4222/2008 M/s Royal Mail Bus Service Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others. ......... Date of Order : 11/09/2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. B.L.Maheshwari for the petitioner. Mr. B.L.Tiwari, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the respondents. BY THE COURT By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order Annex.8 dated 10.04.2008 and a direction to the respondent No.4 Commissioner of Transport Secretary, State Transport Authority, Gandhinagar, Gujarat to countersign the permit of the petitioner on Banswara to Dahod Interstate Route for the period from 23.05.2008 to 23.05.2013. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to the instant writ petition are that the petitioner is holder of a Stage 2 Carriage Permit No.(R.S.5.9) in respect of Bus No. RJ 03 P-1213 on Banswara to Dahod Via Palodara, Siyapur, Salva, Bagidura, Kilanjara, Bheel, Kuwa, Jhaloda Inter-state Route having length of 109 kms., out of which, 70 kms. falls in the territory of State of Rajasthan and remaining portion 39 kms. falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Gujarat. The Govt. of Gujarat proposed that the Stage Carriage Services to be operated by the Gujarat State Road Transport in the entire area of the State of Gujarat and on routes and portions thereof falling within the said area to the companies exclusion of all other persons except :- (i) A State Transport undertaking as defined under sub-section (42) of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “Said Act”. (ii) holder of duly countersigned permits on inter-state routes except those falling under the second provision to sub-section (i) of Section 88 of the Said Act; (iii) holder of permits for stage carriage operating only within the city or town area or any area adjacent to such area as shown in annexure appended to this scheme. 5. (i) The names and addresses of existing permit holders in the areas and on the route (s) mentioned to para 3 above given in annexure appended to this scheme: (ii) Any existing permit holders in relation to any area or areas 3 or route or routes or portion thereof converted by this scheme whose names and addresses have not been mentioned in appendix appended to this scheme shall not be affected by this scheme and be deemed to be included in the said appendix. The two State namely State of Rajasthan and State of Gujarat entered into a fresh reciprocal agreement published in the official Gazette of the State of Rajasthan on 18.09.2004 (Annex.2) and the Route from Banswara to Dahod finds place at Serial No.71 in Appendix “A” of the agreement. The Clause 4 of the agreement is in respect of “Stage Carriage Permits”. Sub- clause (ix) and (x) of Clause 4 are as under:- “(ix) All the previous stage carriage permits, for routes mentioned in Appendix 'A' which are countersigned by either State, before coming in force of this agreement shall remain in force. (x) After obtaining consent of the State Transport Undertaking of the reciprocating States and after duly informed to the concerned State, both States shall increase number of permits and number of single services by 25% every year on every existing route and these permits shall be countersigned by other State on single point taxation basis.” The petitioner submitted an application for grant of renewal of its permit on 07.03.2008 to the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur (for short 'RTA' hereinafter) which granted 4 the applied renewal for a further period of five years by its order dated 10.03.2008 and an endorsement to this effect was made on the permit of the petitioner's bus validating it upto 2013 vide Annex.6 and 7. In pursuance of grant of renewal of the permit in respect of the petitioner by the RTA, Udaipur, the petitioner applied to the respondent No.4 Commissioner of Transport Secretary, State Transport Authority, Gandhinagar (Gujarat) for grant of counter signature with the recommendation letter Annex.7 dated 12.03.2008. The respondent No.4 refused to countersign the permit vide order Annex.8. Hence this writ petition. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent State of Rajasthan raising objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the relief prayed for is against the Commissioner of Transport Secretary, State Transport Authority, Gandhinagar (Gujarat), respondent No.4 herein in respect of the area i.e. Interstate Route, partly falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Gujarat and therefore, the refusal to countersign the Interstate Permit to the petitioner is a cause of action which accrued to the petitioner within the territorial jurisdiction of the Gujarat and therefore, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of this Court in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 902/2006 'Narendra 5 Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.' decided on 28.05.2007, in New Vijay Laxmi Bhambhu Transport Company and Another Vs. State Transport Commissioner and Ors. 1996 (1) WLC (Raj.) 500 (DB) and in Kanaram and etc. etc. Vs. The Regional Transport Authority and another AIR 1990 Rajasthan 143 (DB). It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the cause of action accrued to the petitioner even within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Rajasthan for the reason that the petitioner seeks a countersignature of Interstate Permit and under the Reciprocal Transport Agreement entered into between two State i.e. State of Rajasthan and State of Gujarat, the permit has been granted in favour of the petitioner by the State of Rajasthan and therefore, the Court at Rajasthan has the territorial jurisdiction. Learned Additional Govt. Counsel submits that so far as territorial jurisdiction of State of Rajasthan is concerned, the area from Banswara to Gujarat Border covering the distance of 70 kms. and for that the State of Rajasthan has granted the permit to ply the bus to the petitioner but for the area which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Gujarat, it is for the State of Gujarat to permit the petitioner or not and since the State of Gujarat has taken a policy decision that the Govt. of Gujarat proposed that the State Carriage Services to be operated by the Gujarat State Road Transport in the entire area of State 6 of Gujarat and on routes and portions thereof falling within the said area with the exclusion of private bus operator and therefore, it is a policy decision of the Govt. of Gujarat and if the petitioner is aggrieved by such a policy decision taken by the State of Gujarat, it is for the petitioner to move before the Court having jurisdiction over the State of Gujarat and the order passed by the Govt. of Gujarat. Mr. B.L.Tiwari, learned Additional Govt. Counsel appearing for the respondents has relied on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Alchemist Limited and Anr. Vs. State Bank of Sikkim and Ors. AIR 2007 SC 1812 and a Seven Judges Bench decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Khajoor Singh Vs. Union of India, AIR 1961 SC 532 and contended that no part of cause of action had accrued to the petitioner within the territorial jurisdiction of Rajasthan. Admittedly, the Interstate Stage Carriage Permit according to the petitioner himself is required to be countersigned by the Commissioner of Transport Secretary, State Transport Authority, Gandhinagar (Gujarat) and therefore, this Court would not issue writ which runs beyond the territories of Rajasthan and the person to whom writ is issued must be amenable to the jurisdiction of Court either by location or residence within the territory of Rajasthan which obviously in the instant case is otherwise. 7 In Alchemist Limited and Anr. Vs. State Bank of Sikkim and Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that writs issued by Court cannot run beyond territories subject to its jurisdiction. The person to whom writ is issued must be amenable to its jurisdiction either by residence or location within those territories. In Khajoor Singh Vs. Union of India AIR 1961 SC 532, a Bench of Seven Judges, Speaking for the Majority, Hon'ble C.J. observed as under :- “It seems to us therefore that it is not permissible to read in Article 226 the residence or location of the person affected by the order passed in order to determine the jurisdiction of the High Court. That jurisdiction depends on the person or authority passing the order being within those territories and the residence or location of the person affected can have no relevance on the question of the High Court's jurisdiction.” In National Textile Corporation Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Haribox Swalram and Ors. (2004) 9 SCC 786, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- “The mere fact that the writ petitioner carries on business at Calcutta or that the reply to the correspondence made by it was received at Calcutta is not an integral part of the cause of action and, therefore, the Calcutta High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition and the view 8 to the contrary taken by the Division Bench cannot be sustained.” On above premises, the Apex Court in Alchemist Limited and Anr. Vs. State Bank of Sikkim and Ors. (supra) further held that it is clear that for the purpose of deciding whether facts averred by the petitioner-appellant would or would not constitute a part of cause of action, one has to consider whether such fact constitutes a material, essential, or integral part of the cause of action. It is no doubt true that even if a small fraction of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit/ petition. Nevertheless it must be a part of cause of action, nothing less than that. In Union of India and Others Vs. Adani Exports Ltd. and another, AIR 2002 SC 126, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under :- “In order to confer jurisdiction on a High Court to entertain a writ petition or a special civil application, the High Court must be satisfied from the entire facts pleaded in support of the cause of action that those facts do constitute a cause so as to empower the Court to decide a dispute which has, at least in part, arisen within its jurisdiction. It is clear that each and every fact pleaded in the application does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that those facts give rise to a cause of action within the Court's territorial jurisdiction unless 9 those facts pleaded are such which have a nexus or relevance with the lis that is involved in the case. Facts which have no bearing with the lis or the dispute involved in the case, do not give rise to a cause of action so as to confer territorial jurisdiction on the Court concerned.” On the above premises, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is seen that none of these facts is in any way connected with the relief sought for by the respondents in their civil applications so as to constitute the cause of action at Ahmedabad. In Kanaram and etc. etc. Vs. The Regional Transport Authority and another (supra) this Court observed as under:- “There is no dispute that each of the petitioners in these cases, reside and have their principal place of business in Rajasthan and, therefore, even on inter-State route/routes, in these cases all the routes in dispute are inter-statal routes, falling in between State of Rajasthan and State of Haryana, the Regional Transport Authority has jurisdiction to grant the permit. It has not been disputed so far as the validity of the permit so granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur is concerned, it will be only valid in the State of Haryana on the permits being counter-signed by the Regional Transport Authority/ Authorities in that State. If the permits would not have been granted by the Regional Transport Authority on Inter- statal route, the question of counter-signing by the Regional Transport Authority of the other State would not have arisen. So, therefore, in such cases where permit has been granted by the Regional Transport Authority of one State and is to be counter- signed by the Regional Transport Authority of other State, a part of cause of action can be 10 said to have been arisen in either of the two States.” This view has been reiterated by this Court in New Vijay Laxmi Bhambhu Transport Company and Another Vs. State Transport Commissioner and Ors. (supra). In the instant case, since the order refusing to countersign the Interstate Permit is by the State of Gujarat and therefore, in view of the majority view of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Khajoor Singh Vs. Union of India (supra), issuance of Interstate Permit by the Govt. of Rajasthan or the petitioner's location cannot be a ground to confer jurisdiction to this Court for issue of writ since the jurisdiction depends on the person or on the authority passing the order under challenge and it is the Govt. of Gujarat. Further, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Adani Exports Ltd., it is clear that to constitute the cause of action or part of cause of action, the fact relating to the relief sought for by the party is relevant. In the instant case, the relief sought for is a direction to the Commissioner of Transport Secretary, State Transport Authority, Gandhinagar, Gujarat to countersign the permit on Interstate Route and the facts for seeking such relief is that the aforesaid authority of the State of Gujarat has refused to countersign the interstate agreement and this being the facts on the basis of which the relief is sought by the petitioner, in my 11 view, no part of cause of action accrued to the petitioner within the territorial jurisdiction of State of Rajasthan, on the contrary, the cause of action accrued to the petitioner on refusal to countersign by the Commissioner of Transport Authority, State Transport Authority, at Gandhinagar, in Gujarat State. In this view of the matter, in my view, this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to issue a direction to the respondent No.4 whose order is sought to have been challenged in the instant writ petition. The decisions relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner turn on their own facts and are of no help to the petitioner. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy before the Court having territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ against the order Annex.8 dated 10.4.2008. There shall be no order as to costs. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp 12 S.B.CIVIL MISC. STAY PETITION NO. 7624/08 IN S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4222/2008 Date of Order : 11/09/2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. B.L.Maheshwari for the petitioner. Mr. B.L.Tiwari, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the respondents. Since the writ petition itself has been dismissed, the stay petition also stands dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp