1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. ::: JUDGMENT Delhi Gate City Bus Association. vs. State of Rajasthan and another. S.B.CIVIL SECOND APPEAL NO.407/2005 UNDER SECTION 100 CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25.7.2005 PASSED BY SHRI OMPRAKASH GUPTA, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE NO.1, UDAIPUR IN CIVIL REGULAR APPEAL NO.162/1999. DATE OF JUDGMENT ::: 19.4.2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.P Shah, for the appellant. Mr.HR Soni, AGA, for the respondents. - - - - - BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 The plaintiff/appellant filed suit for injunction alleging that the plaintiff is an association of vehicle owners. The plaintiff's members are holding valid transport license issued by the transport department and are operating the city buses in the city of Udaipur. Some of the buses of the members of the plaintiff even go through the villages. They have paid all the taxes and running their vehicles as per the condition of their permit. The plaintiff pleaded that the defendant i.e. Superintendent of Police is interfering in their daily working. They are being harassed by the police persons and illegally they seize the buses of the members of the plaintiff association. The police department has objection to the stopping of the bus by the plaintiff's members at bus stoppage, therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction seeking relief that when the plaintiff's members are running their buses in approved routes and stop the buses at Delhi Gate, the police department should not put any obstruction and hurdles. The defendants contested the suit by filing written statement and stated that the appellant is not even a registered association and, therefore, cannot file suit on behalf of its members. It is also submitted that the buses are causing obstruction in the 3 free flow of traffic and are being parked at no parking zones. The alleged bus stand was illegally set up by the owners of the vehicles. It is also submitted that the appellant failed to produce any permit or document to show that there is an approved bus stand at Delhi Gate. Two courts below carefully considered oral as well as documentary evidence produced by both the parties. In detailed judgment, two courts below concurrently observed that the appellant failed to produce even the permit to prove their case and further they failed to prove that the bus stand at Delhi Gate is the bus stand declared for that purpose. Be that as it may, looking to the nature of the case, two courts below have very carefully considered each fact of the case and thereafter, decided question of fact against the appellant. Apart from above, in such a matter, the traffic is to be controlled and mere allegation that some of the officers of the police department may have used the power, cannot be a reason for grant of injunction because of the reason that it involves day to day supervision of traffic. In view of the above, this Court is of the view 4 that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal. Consequently, this appeal, having no merit, is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya