1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R (1) S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 8431/2007 KESAR DEVI V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS. (2) S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 101/2008 GORDHAN LAL V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS. (3) S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 102/2008 AYUB KHAN V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS. DATE OF ORDER ::: 04/04/2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSITCE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI Mr. B. L. Maheshwari, for Petitioners. Mr. B.L.Tiwari, Additional State Counsel. Dr. Rakesh Sinha, for Respondents. BY THE COURT: Since an identical question question is involved in all the aforesaid three writ petitions, they are decided by a single order. These writ petitions are directed against the Notification issued by the respondents by invoking the 2 provisions of Section 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1988'). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notification under- challenge, being contrary to the provisions of Section 68 of the Act of 1988, it deserves to be set aside. It is contended that all the Regional Transport Officers (RTOs) have been nominated/appointed as one members Regional Transport Authority (RTA), irrespective of the fact that those authorities are not conforming to the requirement of the proviso Section 68 (2) (i), which is reproduced, for ready reference, as under :- Section 68 (2) (i). Where it considers necessary or expedient so to do, constitute the State Transport Authority or a Regional Transport Authority for any region so as to consist of only one member who shall be an official with judicial experience or experience as an appellate or a revisional authority or as an adjudicating authority competent to pass any order or take any decision under any law.” 3 It is contended that according to the said proviso, only one member can be appointed as a member of State Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority who is an official with judicial experience or experience as an appellate authority or a revisional authority or as adjudicating authority competent to pass any order or to take any decision under any law. It is submitted that the RTOs are not conforming to the aforesaid requirement. Thus, notification aforesaid deserves to be set aside on this ground itself. The further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of Section 68 (2), what has been provided is that the State Transport Authority or Regional Transport Authority shall consist of a Chairman, who has judicial experience or experience as an appellate authority or revisional authority or an adjudicating authority competent to pass any order or to take any decision under any law, apart from two members or four members, in RTA and STA respectively. It is contended that the provision reproduced above needs to be looked into after taking note of the main provision and thereby RTA and STA can be formed when it consists of a Chairman and a member who conform to the requirement as provided under proviso 4 Section 68 (2) (i) of the Act of 1988, thus Chairman is legally necessary. It is otherwise contended that even if the proviso is invoked, then also what is required is that out of the two or four members required to be appointed as per the provisions of Section 62 (2), one member may be appointed conforming the requirement of the proviso, but, then, the other requirements of Section 68 (2) regarding appointment of Chairman cannot be dispensed with and in view of that also, the constitution of the STA and RTA should be in the manner indicated under Section 68 (2) of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the challenge to the notification is without any basis. It is contended that so far as notification is concerned, it provides that RTO would be only member of the RTA so constituted for their respective jurisdiction. So far as the judicial experience or powers of appellate/revisional authority and other aspects as provided under proviso reproduced above, the RTO exercises the powers of appellate authority under Section 14 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 (for short, 5 'the Act of 1951') and he is otherwise enjoying the powers of appellate authority under the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 (for short, 'the Rules of 1990'). Thus, the conditions of proviso Section 68 (2) (i) are being satisfied. So far as issue regarding the appointment of Chairman in reference to the provisions of Section 68 (2) is concerned, it is contended that it provides for constitution of STA and RTA as a normal rule and proviso Section 68 (2) (i) is an exception which provides that if necessary or expedient to do so, the State Government can constitute RTA and STA for any region consisting of one member only. Hence the provision of Section 68 has to be read in totality and cannot be looked into by reading only Section 68 (2) of the Act. If the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, then the proviso will become redundant, inasmuch as if the constitution of the RTA or STA is with a member and one Chairman, then the proviso, referred to above, cannot be affected to. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and scanned the matter carefully. 6 Since the notification has been challenged firstly on the ground that as per the provisions of Section 68 (2) proviso referred to above, an official having no judicial experience or experience as an appellate authority or revisional authority or adjudicating authority competent to pass any order can be appointed. Perusal of the reply shows that RTA is vested with the power of an appellate authority not only under the Rules of 1990 but also under the provisions of the Act of 1951. Section 14 of the Act of 1951 gives powers of appellate authority to the RTO, thus looking to the aforesaid fact, it cannot be said that the proviso of the provisions of Section 68 (2) (i) is not satisfied if the RTO is allowed to be appointed as a one member RTA. In view of the above, I am not convinced, so far as the first argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is concerned. Coming to the second argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of Section 68 (2), for constitution of RTA/STA, it should consist of Chairman and two or four other members, hence if the notification is allowed to stand, then the aforesaid provision is violative, 7 and constitution of the STA/RTA should necessarily be as per the provisions of Section 68 (2). It is further contended that even if the notification is allowed to stand, then at least a direction should be given to have a composition of the RTA/STA as provided udner Section 68 (2). Perusal of the provisions of Section 68 (2) shows that for constitution of RTA and STA, under the aforesaid provision is a Chairman with required qualification along with two or four members as the case may be but then that is not the end of the matter, because the aforesaid provision is subject to proviso where it has been provided that wherever it is necessary or expedient so to do, the RTA of any region can consist of only one member with required qualification. Thus, in given case, the composition of RTA can be as per the proviso referred to above. If the argument of the learned counsel for petitioners is accepted, then no R.T.A. cannot be constituted without a Chairman and in that case, proviso of Section 68 (2) (i) will become redundant. The Court cannot make such a interpretation by which a provision becomes redundant. In fact, provision is an exception to the main provision of Section 68 (2) of the Act of 1988. 8 No other argument was raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In view of the above, I am not convinced with the argument that the notification has been issued by the Government in violation of the provisions of Section 68 of the Act of 1988, rather in view of the discussion made above, I am convinced that the constitution of RTA is in accordance with the provisions of law. Thus, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners do not warrant any interference as there is no merit in it thus same are hereby dismissed. (M. N. BHANDARI), J. scd