1 14 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.696/2006. Shyam Lal Ozha Vs. State & Ors. .... 15 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.695/2006. Arun Kumar Vs. State & Ors. .... 16 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.697/2006. Smt. Geeta Devi Vs. State & Ors. .... Date of Order :: 14th August 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. R.K. Rathi, for the petitioner/s. Mr. B.L. Tiwari, Government Counsel. Mr. B.L. Maheshwari, for the applicant. ..... BY THE COURT: These three writ petitions preferred against the common order dated 21.01.2006 as passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan (‘STAT’) in respective appeals filed by the petitioners have been considered together; and shall be governed by this common order. These writ petitions were entertained by similar nature orders dated 21.02.2006; and for ready reference, the order as passed in CWP No. 696/2006 is reproduced hereunder:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that core questions involved in this writ petition are similar and akin to those involved in SBCWP No.2876/2005 in which show cause notices have been issued and passing of final order in consequence of similar nature impugned order passed by S.T.A.T. has been stayed. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, issue notice to respondents to show cause as to why this petition be not admitted. 2 In the meanwhile and until further orders no final order be passed by the RTA, Chittorgarh in pursuance of the order dated 21.01.2006 [Annexure 2] passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 196/2004, if not so passed by today.” These petitions were thereafter admitted for consideration on 27.07.2006. While the matters remained pending for final orders on stay applications, separate applications for impleadment came to be moved by the private individual Shambhu Lal, stating himself to be a necessary party in these writ petitions for his having applied for grant of permit on the route in question. While considering the said applications for impleadment, the matters were ordered to be listed along with the record of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2876/2005 as the present petitions were entertained only with reference to the said writ petition. Office has placed the record of the said CWP No. 2876/2005 before the Court; and it is noticed that the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 21.11.2007 with the following order:- “1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The only relief claimed by the petitioner in the present writ petition is that pursuant to remand order of STAT dtd.11.3.2003, the application of the petitioner is not being considered by the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner for grant of permit on route Hisar-Bhadra via Balsamand. 3 3. The learned Addl. G.A. points out that in para 3 of the reply, the respondents have stated that on the said route in pursuance of interstate agreement dtd.15.7.1997, total 9 permits with the scope of 18 single services were prescribed and since all the nine permits with 18 single services have already been granted, there are not existing vacancies available on the said route. 4. Be that as it may, the since the only relief pressed in the present writ petition is that the RTA, Bikaner should consider the application of the petitioner, this writ petition is being disposed of with a direction to the RTA, Bikaner to consider the application of the petitioner as well as other applicants which are pending or those who may now apply for grant of permit on the said route in view of available vacancies on the said route. 5. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.” It is informed at the Bar that the aforesaid order was attempted to be challenged in intra-Court Appeal, being SAW No.37/2008, that came to be rejected on 25.04.2008; and a photostat of the order so passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench has been placed for perusal that reads as under:- “Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State. By the order impugned, the learned Single Judge of this Court noticing the grievances of the writ petitioner that his application for grant of route permit is not being disposed of by the Regional Transport Authority, directed the authority concerned to consider the application of the writ petitioner as well as other applicants which are pending or those who may now apply for grant of permit on the said route in view of available vacancies on the said route. 4 Learned counsel for the appellant mainly assailed the order impugned on the ground that his application alone was required to be processed by the authority and not applications of others, as they have never come to this Court nor such prayer was made on their behalf. On plain reading of the order impugned it appears that the learned Single Judge of this Court, to avoid further complications, directed for disposal of the application of the writ petitioner along with others. This order obviously was passed owing to the circumstances that all such applications for same route should be considered together. By passing the order impugned, in our view, the learned Single Judge of this Court has not committed any error nor the order impugned can be said to be without jurisdiction. For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, this appeal is dismissed.” For the fact that these writ petitions were entertained only with reference to the similar nature CWP No. 2876/2005; and the matter in the said CWP No.2876/2005 stands concluded with the directions as issued by the Hon’ble Single Judge in the order dated 21.11.2007 and as affirmed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the order dated 25.04.2008, this Court is clearly of opinion that the present writ petitions deserve to be disposed of in the same terms and following the said decisions. In fact, for the order as passed by this Court in the said CWP No. 2876/2005, essentially the directions as issued by the STAT in the similar nature impugned order for 5 consideration of all the applications stands affirmed with specific directions to consider the pending application of the petitioner as well as other applicants or of those who might apply for grant of the permit on the route in question in view of the available vacancies. It was feebly attempted to be argued by the learned counsel Mr. R.K. Rathi appearing for the petitioner that the application of the petitioner ought to have been considered in priority and only thereafter other applications could have been considered. Apart that no such contention seems to have been placed for consideration before this Court in CWP No. 2876/2005 (though, of course, the subject-matter related to a different route), it is noticed that the view as taken by the Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court has been approved in appeal and the directions for disposal of the application of the said petitioner along with the application of others have been affirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench with the specific observations that such directions were issued to avoid further complications; and that such an order ‘obviously was passed owing to the circumstances that all such applications for same route should be considered together’. For the view already taken in the aforementioned decisions, this Court is unable to countenance the submission sought to be made on behalf of the petitioners in these writ petitions. 6 For this Court being satisfied that these writ petitions deserve not to be proceeded further, particularly for the decisions aforesaid, even when the matters have been placed for consideration of the applications for impleadment, leaving aside such applications, these writ petitions deserve to be dismissed following the decisions aforesaid and, of course, subject to the observations therein. The petitions are, therefore, dismissed subject to the observations aforesaid. The petitions having been dismissed, the applications for impleadment are rendered redundant and are rejected as such. No costs. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/ 7 15 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.695/2006. Date of Order :: 14th August 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. R.K. Rathi, for the petitioner. Mr. B.L. Tiwari, Government Counsel. Mr. B.L. Maheshwari, for the applicant. ..... Vide detailed order made in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 696/2006 (Shyam Lal Ozha Vs. State & Ors.). (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/ 8 16 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.697/2006. Date of Order :: 14th August 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. R.K. Rathi, for the petitioner. Mr. B.L. Tiwari, Government Counsel. Mr. B.L. Maheshwari, for the applicant. ..... Vide detailed order made in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 696/2006 (Shyam Lal Ozha Vs. State & Ors.). (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. Mohan/