1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR. O R D E R R.S.R.T.C., JAIPUR V. S.T.A.T. & OTHERS S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 220/97. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. DATE OF ORDER :::: 21-01-2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. P.K. Lohra, for Petitioner. Mr. Shyam Ladrecha, State counsel for respondents. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This petition is directed against the judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur (S.T.A.T.) dated 22.12.1995, passed in a matter which has been remanded by order of this Court dated 8th September, 1990, passed in S. B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 2966/95 and 2967/95. Those writ petitions were filed at the instance of private bus operators, namely, respondents No. 3 and 4 herein, but the STAT, while allowing the appeal of the Corporation, had set aside the permit granted to them on the ground that that route on which permit was granted was overlapping with the nationalized/notified route for more than 10 kms. and thus, violated Section 69-D of 2 the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1939'). Shri P.K.Lohra, learned counsel for the Corporation, argued that grant of permit to the private operators respondents No.3 and 4 was bad in law, being hit by Section 68- C and 68-D of the Act of 1939 as no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner – Corporation prior to issuing such permit to them. It was argued that in both the cases, overlapping was for more than 10 Kms and the Regional Transport Authority wrongly assumed that it was on a lesser length, relying merely survey on the report prepared by the District Transport Officer. Such survey report was prepared behind the back of the petitioner and at the instance of the permit operators without associating any representative of the petitioner. Shri Lohra, therefore, argued that the permit granted to respondents No.3 and 4 are liable to be set aside and the judgment of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal is also liable to be set aside. None is present on behalf of the respondents No. 3 and 4, though reply to the writ petition filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 – R.T.A. is on record. In the reply, it has been contended that the distance of the route to the extent it overlaps is only 9 kms. There was, therefore, no infraction of 3 law. But that should not detain the Court for any longer because perusal of the impugned judgment, reveals that the State Transport Appellate Authority virtually allowed the revisions petitions filed by the Corporation, holding that it was not required to rely on the survey report, because as per Section 103 sub-section (2) (b) and (c), the RTA, for the purpose of giving effect to the approved scheme in respect of the notified area or notified route, may, cancel any existing permit; and modify the terms of any existing permit so as to – (i) render the permit ineffective beyond a specified date; (ii) reduce the number of vehicles authorised to be used under the permit; and (iii) curtail the area or route covered by the permit in so far as such permit relates to the notified area or notified route The STAT, therefore, while not upholding the condition on which the permit was originally granted to the respondents No. 3 and 4 that they would not be permitted to take or drop the passengers on such part of the route which was notified, directed the route in permit shall stand curtailed from the starting point upto the point where it touches the notified/ nationalized route. In other words, the State Transport Appellate Authority did not allow the respondents No. 3 and 4 on the basis of permit in question to ply on notified route by curtailing the length thereof from the starting point till it touches the notified route. This was done by the State Transport Appellate Authority while relying on the ratio 4 of the judgment dated December 14, 1984, passed by this Court in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2773/84 (Shanti Devi v. R.T.A., Udaipur & Others). In view of the law propounded by this Court in aforesaid judgment propounded, I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment. In my considered view, merely because the respondents No. 3 and 4 have been granted permit to operate on route other than the notified route, that does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner – Corporation. I, therefore, do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the S.T.A.T. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J. Scd.