Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Bajrang Lal vs State Of Raj And Ors on 14 December, 2017
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9675 / 2008
1. Bajrang Lal S/o Geeda Ram aged about 40 years R/o Ringus
District Sikar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, through Chief Secretary, Secretariat
Building, Jaipur.
2. Shri Shriram Meena, Additional Transport commissioner &
sole member of Regional Transport Authorities of Jaipur, Alwar,
Udaipur, Jodhpur, Bikaner, Kota, Ajmer, Dausa, Sikar, Chittorgarh
& Pali.
3. Regional Transport Officer, Sikar acting as Regional Transport
Authority, Sikar.
4. Gopal Lal S/o Ramlal R/o Ward no.2, Khatu Mod, Ringus,
District Sikar.
5. Prahlad Ram S/o Bodhu Ram, R/o Devendra ki Dhani,
Srimadhopur, District Sikar.
6. Harphool Singh S/o Mohanlal R/o Dhani Uparli, Ringus
District Sikar.
7. Ranjeet Singh Rathore S/o Rameshwar Singh R/o Village
Nainia, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Nagaur.
----Respondents
Connected With D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7219 / 2008
1. Shri Manwar Khan , S/o Shri Bhure Khan, Aged About 43 years, R/o Mandrela.
2. Shri Vijay Singh S/o Phoola Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Lalpur, Distt. Jhunjhunu.
3. Shri Gauri Shankar S/o Kedar Mal, Aged About 50 years, R/o Mandrela.
4. Smt Mohini Devi, W/o Shri Tara Chand, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Nalwa.
5. Shri Rajendra S/o Shri Chunni Lal Aged about 32 Years R/o Lamba.
----Petitioners Versus (2 of 6) [ CW-9675/2008]
1. State Of Rajasthan through the Transport Commission, Parivahan Bhavan, Sahkar Marg, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Sikar, Region- Sikar.
3. The Distt. Transport Officer, Jhunjhunu.
----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6808 / 2009 Manish Kapoor S/o Shri H.R. Kapoor, age near about 32 years, R/o 547-A, Lajpat Nagar, Alwar (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan through Secretary cum Transport Commissioner, Parivahan Bhawan, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur
2. Regional Transport Authority, Alwar, Region, Alwar, through Secretary.
----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7809 / 2010
1. Jagdish Prasad S/o Shri Hanuman Prasad, age near about 50 years, R/o Ward No. 14, Purani Abadi, Ganganagar Distt.
Ganganagar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan through Secretary cum Transport Commissioner, Parivahan Bhawan, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur.
2. Member Regional Transport Authority, All regions Parivahan Bhawan, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner, Region, Bikaner, through Secretary.
----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8872 / 2010
1. Asha Ram W/o Shri Jagdish Prasad, age near about 53 years, R/o Ward No. 13, Sangria, Distt. Hanumangarh (Raj.)
----Petitioner (3 of 6) [ CW-9675/2008] Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan through Secretary cum Transport Commissioner, Parivahan Bhawan, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur
2. Member Regional Transport Authority, All regions Parivahan Bhawan, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner, Region, Bikaner, through Secretary.
----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14277 / 2010
1. Pawan Kumar S/o Shri Chagan Lal Soni, age near about 45 years, R/o Salasar, Teh. Sujangarh, Distt. Churu (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan through Secretary cum Transport Commissioner, Parivahan Bhawan, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur.
2. Regional Transport Authority, Sikar, Region, Sikar, through Secretary.
----Respondents _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : None present. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Bhatt, Addl.G.C. _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MAHESHWARI Judgment 14/12/2017 None is present on behalf of the petitioner even in second round.
The present batch of petitions has been filed by the Transport Operators having grievance in reference to permit to ply vehicles be extended as permitted to their contemporary and we have taken note of the facts from Writ Petition No.9675/2008 & (4 of 6) [ CW-9675/2008] we consider it appropriate to refer the prayer made in the writ petition which reads as under:-
"It is therefore prayed that this petition may kindly be allowed and the Hon'ble Court be pleased to order:
I. By a writ prohibition or any other writ, order or direction the Respondent RTA be restrained from formulating any part or portions of Petitioner's Ringus to Danta route into other new, separate and distinct routes and granting an increasing stage carriage permit thereon.
II. By a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions, the appointment of Shri Shri Ram Meena i.e. Respondent No.2 as a sole member of all the eleven RTAs (vide annexure-3) and his order of delegation of his powers to Respondent No.3 be quashed and set aside and he be restrained from acting as Regional Transport Authority or member thereof.
III. By a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions, the impugned orders of Respondent No.3 granting of the stage carriage permits vide ANN-5, 6 & 7 to Respondents No. 4 to 7 be quashed and set aside, holding that the Respondent No.3 had no power and jurisdiction to act as RTA Sikar.
IV. By any appropriate writ, order or direction, it be declared that the Respondent RTA is not a validly constituted body within the meaning of sub section (2) & (3) of section 68 of the Act and rules made thereunder and it has no authority and jurisdiction to exercise and (5 of 6) [ CW-9675/2008] discharge the powers and functions of RTA conferred by or under Chapter V of the ACT.
V. By any appropriate writ, order or direction, it be declared that sub rule (1) of rule 5.4 of the Rules are ultra virus the provisions of the section 96 and the provisions of sub section (2) and sub section (5) of section 68 of the Act in so far as it relates the delegation of all or some of the power or functions to the officers Transport department upto the rank of the Motor Vehicle Inspector.
VI. Any other relief which is found reasonable and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case be granted in favour of the petitioner. The cost of the petitioner be also awarded in favour of the petitioner and against the Respondents."
From the material which has come on record the period of permit has expired and further prayer has been made for assaling the validity of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5.4 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 which remained academic exercise and not going to serve any purpose. It may be noticed that earlier there was an interim protection granted to the petitioner vide order dt.
27.09.2008 but taking note of judgment of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Mohd. Nawab Ali Khan & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos.1813-1814 of 2008 decided on 07.03.2008, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dt. 12.03.2012 vacated the interim order also.
On account of change in circumstances, which has been (6 of 6) [ CW-9675/2008] brought to our notice, we find that what is being prayed for in the writ petitions remain academic and not to serve any purpose.
As regards the validity of the provisions which has been challenged in batch of the instant writ petitions, we leave to open to be examined in the appropriate proceedings if assailed by the persons aggrieved, if, so advised.
Batch of the writ petitions have become infructuous for the reasons aforesaid and are accordingly dismissed.
(DEEPAK MAHESHWARI),J. (AJAY RASTOGI),J.
R.Mathur/Arun/22 to 27