1 S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 32/2007 Jodhpur City Bus Owners Union & Anr vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of order : 11.10.2007 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.Girish Joshi,for the petitioner. <><><> The review petition has been filed by the petitioners on the ground that in the judgment dated 30.8.2007 at page no.62 it has been recorded that the petitioners and petitioners' member did not apply for the grant of permit for the routes opened by the State Government by its order dated 4.11.2006 nor they are intending to apply for permit for these routes. According to learned counsel for the petitioners the petitioners did not apply for permit for the routes opened by the Government, but they never stated that they are not intending to apply for the permit for these routes. It is also submitted that the two judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Commissioner of Police, Bombay Vs. Gordhandas Bhani reported in AIR 1952 SC 16 and Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 in support of his 2 argument that nothing can be added and supplied in the order passed by the Government and order must be self-speaking, have not been referred in the judgment dated 30.8.2007. It is also submitted that petitioners' case was that when a particular thing is to be done in a particular manner then all other means of doing that thing is forbidden by law and further argued that a monopoly has been created in favour of the company as the conditions for providing a particular type of bus having particular type of equipments attached in the orders and gazette. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the judgment dated 30.8.2007. So far as first contention of the petitioners that they never intended to submit that they are not intending to apply for the permit for the routes is concerned, suffice it to say that in the writ petition itself there is no submission of the petitioners that they want to apply for the route and all the facts have been taken note of by this Court in the judgment dated 30.8.2007, which includes the contention of the respondents that the petitioners never applied for the route and, in case, they apply for the route and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in Mithilesh Garg any 3 one can get permit for asking irrespective of number of operators already in the field. I referred the contention in this aspect at page no.58 of the judgment dated 30.8.2007 wherein this Court clearly observed that in the case of Mithilesh Garg it has been clearly held that the procedure for grant of permit under the new Act has been liberalized to such an extent that an intended operator can get a permit for asking irrespective of number of operators already in the field. Therefore, the statement of the petitioners recorded as “nor they are intending to apply for permit for these routes” was their own stand that they cannot apply because monopoly has been created. Thus, the statement does not bar the petitioner for applying for the route provided they are eligible and fullfiles other conditions as considered in the judgment. Therefore, there is no reason for reviewing the judgment on this count. So far as providing conditions of certain vehicles are concerned, in the judgment the issue has been discussed at length and there is a reference of certain Supreme Court's judgment wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that new type of vehicles and fast increasing number of both commercial and personal vehicles in the country is needed and for that purpose, bill, aim and object of the Act of 1988 and 1994 were considered by this Court. Therefore, on 4 this count also, I do not find any reason for reviewing the judgment dated 30.8.2007. Non-mentioning of few of the authorities itself cannot be a ground for review. In view of the above reasons, I do not find any reason for reviewing of the judgment on this count also. So far as creation of monopoly of the company on all other grounds including the grounds, which have been raised in the review petition, were the subject matter in the writ petition and have been considered in detail. In view of the above, I do not find any force in the review petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-