1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 525 of 2006 HANUMAN RAM V/S STATE & ORS. Mr. BL MAHESHWARI, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. PK LOHRA, Mr. BL TIWARI, Addl. Govt. Counsel, for the respondent Date of Order : 3.4.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI SANGEET LODHA,J. ORDER ----- Heard learned counsel for the parties. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition of the appellant. It has been found by learned Single Judge that the litigation seems to be proxy litigation at the instance of the operators on the route in question, and for that certain circumstances had been relied upon. This is one aspect of the matter. Then at page 9 onwards, the learned Single Judge has also considered that the objection about validity of Rule in the present case remains only academic, as the petitioner has not submitted any objection within 30 days of publication of the proposal, and even if it is assumed that the petitioner could have maintained the objections, he could possibly do it within 30 days, while in the present case, the objection 2 had been filed on 4.3.2006 only. Then the ground of the petitioner not coming to know of the proposal has also been considered, and it has been found that this does not give the starting point of limitation of 30 days for filing objection. It was found that the proposal was published in the official Gazette on 12.9.2005, and also published in the newspaper, and therefore, he could have filed the objection within time prescribed. Much stress was laid before us by submitting that gazette notification dated 12.9.2005 only contemplates objections to be filed by the persons interested, which is contrary to the provisions of Section 100, inasmuch as, thereunder any person can file objection. It would suffice to say that firstly if that were the feeling, the petitioner could have challenged the notification dated 12.9.2005 at that time itself, and could have asked for a right to file objections. But this has not been done. On the other hand, the petitioner has filed objections under Section 100 very much, as is clear from perusal of Annex.5, and sought to contend the objection to be entertainable from the date of his coming to know of the notification. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner was ever of the view that his objections will not be entertained on the ground of his not being aggrieved person. Be that as it may. The fact remains, as noticed above, that the 3 petitioner has not filed objections within 30 days from the date of notification. Had the petitioner filed objections within 30 days, and if thereafter, the objections were to be rejected on the ground of they having been filed by person, who is said to be not aggrieved, then probably the matter could have considered by this Court on merits. Thus, we do not find any error with the impugned order. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed summarily. ( SANGEET LODHA ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/