Dismissed

Shri Yashpal Singh Charan v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC18 Oct 2022CW/793/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions by bus operators seeking fresh stage carriage permits on City Bus Route No.15 + 15A in Jodhpur, after the Regional Transport Authority and the appellate tribunal refused them citing adequate existing service, congestion and pollution. The court upheld the refusal, holding the existing ceiling of 250 permits valid and the reasons given by the authorities neither unreasonable nor unju

What the court decided

AI extract

Shri Yashpal Singh Charan Vs State of Rajasthan — Environment and Pollution | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13693/2020

¶3

Shri Anil Bhati S/o Shri Raja Bhati, Aged About 41 Years, By Caste Ghachi, R/o 429, Gali No. 5, Milkmain Colony, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur.

¶7

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶8

Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur. 4. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretrate, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶9

Shri Pukh Raj S/o Shri Poona Ram, R/o Chawandi, Osiyan, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

Connected With

¶12

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11417/2020

¶13

Virendra Singh S/o Shri Hari Singh, Aged About 54 Years, R/o 86, Baldeo Nagar, Masuriya, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶14

----Petitioner

¶15

Versus

¶16

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶17

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶18

The State Tranposrt Appellate Tribunal, Raj, Mini Secretrate, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶19

Purkha Ram S/o Shri Poona Ram, R/o Chawandi, Osiya, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Respondents

(2 of 31)

[CW-13693/2020]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11452/2020

¶24

Dama Ram S/o Shri Moti Ram, Aged About 49 Years, Resident Of Jato Ka Bas, Boranada, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶25

----Petitioner

¶26

Versus

¶27

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶28

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶29

Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur. 4. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretrate, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶30

Shri Purkha Ram S/o Shri Poona Ram, R/o Chawandi, Osiya, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶31

----Respondents

¶32

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13683/2020

¶33

Smt. Sunder Kanwar W/o Shri Swaroop Singh, Aged About 24 Years, By Caste Charan, R/o Talia, Utrada Judia, Tehsil Bales, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶34

----Petitioner

¶35

Versus

¶36

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶37

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶38

Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur. 4. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretrate, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶39

Shri Pukh Raj S/o Shri Poona Ram, R/o Chawandi, Osiyan, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶40

----Respondents

¶41

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13684/2020

¶42

Smt. Ganga Devi W/o Shri Mohan Lal Gurjar, Aged About 56 Years, R/o 345, Rameshwar Nagar, Basni, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner

(3 of 31)

[CW-13693/2020]

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶48

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶49

Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶50

The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretrate, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶51

Shri Pukh Raj S/o Shri Poona Ram, R/o Chawandi, Osiyan, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶52

----Respondents

¶53

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13685/2020

¶54

Shri Narendra Kumar S/o Shri Ganga Vishan Brahmin, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Sarmikpura, Masuria, Near Silavato Ki Maszid, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶55

----Petitioner

¶56

Versus

¶57

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶58

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶59

Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶60

The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretrate, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶61

Shri Chiman Singh S/o Shri Sohan Singh, R/o Char Thamba, Mangra Poonjla, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶62

----Respondents

¶63

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13690/2020

¶64

Mehardin S/o Ushman Khan, Aged About 51 Years, By Caste Musalman, R/o Muktja Ki Gali, Siwanchi Gate, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶65

----Petitioner

¶66

Versus

¶67

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur.

¶68

(4 of 31) [CW-13693/2020]

¶69

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶70

Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶71

The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretrate, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶72

Shri Chiman Singh S/o Shri Sohan Singh, R/o Char Thamba, Mangra Poonjla, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶73

----Respondents

¶74

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13696/2020

¶75

Saraj Khan S/o Sher Mohad., Aged About 54 Years, By Cast Musalman, R/o F-10, Marudhar Nagar, Pal Link Road, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶76

----Petitioner

¶77

Versus

¶78

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur.

¶79

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶80

Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶81

The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretrate, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶82

Shri Pukh Raj S/o Shri Poona Ram, R/o Chawandi, Osiyan, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶83

----Respondents

¶84

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 32/2021

¶85

Shri Sohan Lal Jat S/o Shri Shri Durga Ram Jat, Aged About 38 Years, R/o 49 Salawas Road, Sangariya, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶86

----Petitioner

¶87

Versus

¶88

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶89

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶90

Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur

¶91

(5 of 31)

¶92

[CW-13693/2020]

¶93

The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretrate, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶94

Shri Chiman Singh S/o Shri Sohan Singh, R/o Char Thamba, Mangra Poonjla, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶95

----Respondents

¶96

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 39/2021

¶97

Shri Sohan Lal Jat S/o Shri Shri Durga Ram Jat, Aged About 38 Years, R/o 49 Salawas Road, Sangariya, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶98

----Petitioner

¶99

Versus

¶100

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶101

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶102

Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur

¶103

The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretrate, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶104

Shri Chiman Singh S/o Shri Sohan Singh, R/o Char Thamba, Mangra Poonjla, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶105

----Respondents

¶106

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 57/2021

¶107

Arjun Singh S/o Gishu Singh, Aged About 41 Years, By Caste Rajput R/o 345, Second D Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶108

----Petitioner

¶109

Versus

¶110

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶111

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶112

Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur 4. The Sate Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶113

Chiman Singh S/o Sohan Singh, Char Thamba, Mangra Poonjla, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Respondents

(6 of 31)

[CW-13693/2020]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 61/2021

¶118

Shri Hari Singh S/o Jethu Singh, Aged About 60 Years, Behind J.p. School, Kheme Ka Kua, Pal Road, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶119

----Petitioner

¶120

Versus

¶121

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶122

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶123

Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur 4. The Sate Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶124

Chiman Singh S/o Sohan Singh, Char Thamba, Mangra Poonjla, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶125

----Respondents

¶126

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 97/2021

¶127

Shri Anil Bhati S/o Shri Raja Bhati, Aged About 40 Years, By Caste Ghachi, R/o 429, Gali No. 5, Milkman Colony, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶128

----Petitioner

¶129

Versus

¶130

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶131

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶132

Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur 4. The Sate Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶133

Shri Chiman Singh, R/o Char Thamba, Mangra Punjla, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶134

----Respondents

¶135

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 98/2021

¶136

Shri Dhnna Ram S/o Shri Poona Ram Jat, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Nai Basti, Pal, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner

(7 of 31)

[CW-13693/2020]

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶142

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶143

Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur. 4. The Sate Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶144

Shri Chiman Singh S/o Shri Sohan Singh, R/o Char Thamba, Magra Poonjla, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶145

----Respondents

¶146

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 99/2021

¶147

Shri Mukesh Purohit S/o Shri Jaswant Singh, Aged About 46 Years, R/o 345, Second D Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶148

----Petitioner

¶149

Versus

¶150

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶151

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶152

Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur

¶153

The Sate Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶154

Shri Chiman Singh, R/o Char Thamba, Mangra Poonjla, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶155

----Respondents

¶156

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 114/2021

¶157

Shri Rajendra Singh Charan S/o Shri Durga Ram Charan, Aged About 45 Years, R/o 3Aa-30-31, Madhuban Housing Board, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶158

----Petitioner

¶159

Versus

¶160

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶161

(8 of 31) [CW-13693/2020]

¶162

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶163

Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶164

The Sate Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶165

Shri Chiman Singh, R/o Char Thamba, Mangra Poonjla, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶166

----Respondents

¶167

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 116/2021

¶168

Shri Bala Ram S/o Shri Bhura Ram, Aged About 41 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o Kareli Nadi, Jhanwar, Luni, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶169

----Petitioner

¶170

Versus

¶171

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶172

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶173

Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶174

The Sate Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶175

Shri Pukh Raj S/o Shri Poona Ram, R/o Chawandi, Ossia, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶176

----Respondents

¶177

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 119/2021

¶178

Shri Ashok Kumar Tiwari S/o Shri Anjani Kumar, Aged About 56 Years, By Cast Sharma, R/o Opp. Girls School, Jalori Gate, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶179

----Petitioner

¶180

Versus

¶181

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶182

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶183

Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶184

(9 of 31) [CW-13693/2020]

¶185

The Sate Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶186

Shri Pukh Raj, R/o Chawandi, Osiya, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶187

----Respondents

¶188

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 122/2021

¶189

Shri Laxmi Kant S/o Shri Harshkant Brahmin, Aged About 38 Years, R/o 3 Ch 9, Madhuban Housing Board, Basni, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶190

----Petitioner

¶191

Versus

¶192

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶193

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶194

Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶195

The Sate Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶196

Shri Pukh Raj, R/o Chawandi, Ossia, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶197

----Respondents

¶198

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 123/2021

¶199

Shri Yashpal Singh Charan S/o Shri Rajendra Singh, Aged About 23 Years, R/o 3Aa-30-31, Madhuban Housing Boar,d Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶200

----Petitioner

¶201

Versus

¶202

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶203

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶204

Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶205

The Sate Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶206

(10 of 31)

¶207

[CW-13693/2020]

¶208

Shri Chiman Singh, R/o Char Thamba, Mangra Poonjla, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶209

----Respondents

¶210

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 125/2021

¶211

Shri Vijay Mewara S/o Shri Nemi Chand, Aged About 39 Years, By Cast Kalal, R/o 5A, 19 Sector, Kudi Bhagtasani Housing Board, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶212

----Petitioner

¶213

Versus

¶214

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶215

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶216

Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur. 4. The Sate Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶217

----Respondents

¶218

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 136/2021

¶219

Ashok Kumar Tiwari S/o Shri Anjani Kumar, Aged About 56 Years, B/c Sharma, R/o Opp. Girls School, Jalori Gate, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶220

----Petitioner

¶221

Versus

¶222

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶223

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶224

Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶225

The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretrate, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶226

Shri Chiman Singh S/o Shri Sohan Singh, R/o Char Thambha, Magra Punjala, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Respondents

(11 of 31)

[CW-13693/2020]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 137/2021

¶231

Kistur Ram S/o Shri Aidan Ram, Aged About 57 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Nai Basti, Pal, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶232

----Petitioner

¶233

Versus

¶234

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶235

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶236

Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur. 4. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretrate, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶237

Shri Pukh Raj S/o Shri Poona Ram, R/o Chawandi, Ossia, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶238

----Respondents

¶239

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 161/2021

¶240

Shri Bhanwar Singh Rajput S/o Shri Hari Singh, Aged About 52 Years, R/o 86 Baldeo Nagar, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶241

----Petitioner

¶242

Versus

¶243

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶244

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶245

Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur. 4. The Sate Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶246

Shri Pukh Raj, R/o Chawandi, Osiya, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶247

----Respondents

¶248

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 162/2021

¶249

Shri Mukesh Purohit S/o Shri Jaswant Singh, Aged About 46 Years, R/o 345, Second D Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶250

----Petitioner

¶251

Versus

¶252

(12 of 31) [CW-13693/2020]

¶253

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶254

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶255

Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶256

The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretrate, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶257

Shri Chiman Singh S/o Shri Sohan Singh, R/o Char Thamba, Mangra Poonjla, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶258

----Respondents

¶259

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 164/2021

¶260

Shri Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Bansi Singh Rajput, Aged About 38 Years, R/o 1A/117, Kudi Bhagtasani Housing Board, Basni, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶261

----Petitioner

¶262

Versus

¶263

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶264

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶265

Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶266

The Sate Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶267

Shri Pukh Raj, R/o Chawandi, Ossia, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶268

----Respondents

¶269

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 473/2021

¶270

Harish S/o Nemi Chand, Aged About 42 Years, 1/16, D.d.p. Nagar Madhuban Housing Board, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶271

----Petitioner

¶272

Versus

¶273

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶274

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶275

(13 of 31) [CW-13693/2020]

¶276

The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶277

Pukh Raj S/o Poona Ram, Chawandi, Osiya, District Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶278

----Respondents

¶279

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 479/2021

¶280

Harish S/o Shri Nemi Chand, Aged About 42 Years, R/o 1/16, D.d.p. Nagar Madhuban Housing Board, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶281

----Petitioner

¶282

Versus

¶283

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶284

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶285

Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶286

The Sate Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶287

Shri Pukh Raj S/o Shri Poona Ram, R/o Chawandi, Osiya, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶288

----Respondents

¶289

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 549/2021

¶290

Shri Sarvan Ram S/o Harlal Jat, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Vishnu Ki Dhani, Chandelal, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶291

----Petitioner

¶292

Versus

¶293

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶294

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶295

Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur. 4. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretrate, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶296

Shri Chiman Singh S/o Shri Sohan Singh, R/o Char Thamba, Mangra Poonjla, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Respondents

(14 of 31)

[CW-13693/2020]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 569/2021

¶301

Shri Deo Kishan S/o Khadu Ram, Aged About 55 Years, By Caste Bishnoi, R/o Bishnoio Ka Bas, Near Railway Station, Manaklao, Jodhpur.

¶302

----Petitioner

¶303

Versus

¶304

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶305

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶306

Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur 4. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶307

Chiman Singh S/o Sohan Singh, Char Thamba, Mangra Poonjla, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶308

----Respondents

¶309

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 647/2021

¶310

Shri Ramesh Bishnoi S/o Shri Chunni Lal Bishnoi, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Singho Ki Dhani, Basni, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶311

----Petitioner

¶312

Versus

¶313

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶314

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶315

Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur 4. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶316

Chiman Singh S/o Shri Sohan Singh, R/o Char Thamba, Mangra Poonjla, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Respondents

(15 of 31)

[CW-13693/2020]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 734/2021

¶321

Smt. Lalita Parihar W/o Shri Rajendra Parihar, Aged About 28 Years, By Cast Sen R/o Bholibai Ka Mandir, Khanda Falsa, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶322

----Petitioner

¶323

Versus

¶324

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶325

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶326

Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur. 4. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretrate, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶327

Shri Pukh Raj S/o Shri Poona Ram, R/o Chawandi, Osiya, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶328

----Respondents

¶329

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 783/2021

¶330

Shri Ramnarayan S/o Shri Madhav Ram, Aged About 34 Years, By Cast Jat, R/o Rampura, Bhatiyan Ramsani, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶331

----Petitioner

¶332

Versus

¶333

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶334

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶335

Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur. 4. The Sate Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶336

Shri Pukh Raj S/o Shri Poona Ram, R/o Chawandi, Osiya, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶337

----Respondents

¶338

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 786/2021

¶339

Bhanwar Singh S/o Hari Singh, Aged About 52 Years, By Caste Rajput, R/o 86, Baldeo Nagar, Masuria, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner

(16 of 31)

[CW-13693/2020]

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶345

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶346

Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur

¶347

The State Transport Appellate Tribunal Raj., Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶348

Purkha Ram S/o Poona Ram, Chawandi, Osiyan, District Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶349

----Respondents

¶350

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 787/2021

¶351

Shri Vijay Mewara S/o Shri Nemi Chand, Aged About 39 Years, By Cast Kalal, R/o 5A, 19 Sector, Kudi Bhagtasani Housing Board, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶352

----Petitioner

¶353

Versus

¶354

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶355

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶356

Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶357

The Sate Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶358

Shri Purkha Ram S/o Poona Ram, R/o Chawandi, Ossia, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶359

----Respondents

¶360

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 789/2021

¶361

Shri Manoj Parihar S/o Shri Kishore Singh Sain, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Bheru Chowk, Soorsagar, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶362

----Petitioner

¶363

Versus

¶364

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶365

(17 of 31) [CW-13693/2020]

¶366

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶367

Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur. 4. The Sate Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶368

Shri Chiman Singh S/o Shri Sohan Singh, R/o Char Thamba, Magra Poonjla, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶369

----Respondents

¶370

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 791/2021

¶371

Smt. Indra Jat W/o Shri Kistura Ram Jat, Aged About 55 Years, R/o 230, Nai Basti, Pal, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶372

----Petitioner

¶373

Versus

¶374

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶375

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶376

Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶377

The Sate Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶378

Shri Pukh Raj S/o Shri Poona Ram, R/o Chawandi, Osiya, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶379

----Respondents

¶380

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 793/2021

¶381

Shri Yashpal Singh Charan S/o Shri Rajendra Singh, Aged About 23 Years, R/o 3Aa-30-31, Madhuban Housing Board, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶382

----Petitioner

¶383

Versus

¶384

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶385

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶386

Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶387

(18 of 31)

¶388

[CW-13693/2020]

¶389

The Sate Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretariat, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶390

Shri Chiman Singh, R/o Char Thamba, Magra Poonjla, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶391

----Respondents

¶392

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1007/2021

¶393

Shri Mangi Lal S/o Shri Moti Lal Brhmin, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Madhuban Housing Board, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶394

----Petitioner

¶395

Versus

¶396

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶397

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶398

Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶399

The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Raj., Mini Secretrate, Bani Park, Jaipur.

¶400

Shri Chiman Singh S/o Shri Sohan Singh, R/o Char Thamba, Mangra Poonjla, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶401

----Respondents

¶402

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1311/2021

¶403

Shri Jora Ram S/o Shri Pukh Raj, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Basni Ii Phase, Tandiya Ki Dhani, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶404

----Petitioner

¶405

Versus

¶406

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶407

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶408

Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶409

Shri Chiman Singh S/o Shri Sohan Singh, R/o Char Thamba, Mangra Poonjla, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Respondents

(19 of 31)

[CW-13693/2020]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1318/2021

¶414

Shri Poona Ram S/o Kola Ram Bishnoi, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Bishnoio Ka Bas, Manaklav, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶415

----Petitioner

¶416

Versus

¶417

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶418

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶419

Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶420

Shri Chiman Singh S/o Shri Sohan Singh, R/o Char Thamba, Mangra Poonjla, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶421

----Respondents

¶422

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1452/2021

¶423

Shri Jora Ram S/o Shri Pukh Raj, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Basni Ii Phase, Tandiya Ki Dhani, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶424

----Petitioner

¶425

Versus

¶426

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Transport Department, Sahkar Marg, Parivahan Bhawan, Jaipur.

¶427

The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur.

¶428

Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region , Jodhpur. 4. Shri Chiman Singh S/o Shri Sohan Singh, R/o Char Thamba, Mangra Poonjla, Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶429

----Respondents

¶430

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.K. Rathi

¶431

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudhir Tak, AAG with Mr. Saransh Vij

¶432

(20 of 31)

¶433

[CW-13693/2020]

¶434

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

¶435

Judgment / Order

¶436

18/10/2022

¶437

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved with the action of the respondent - transport authorities of not issuing fresh stage carriage permits to operate city buses on City Bus Route No.15 + 15 A in the city of Jodhpur.

¶438

Since, the controversy involved in these writ petitions is identical, the facts of SBCWP No.13693/2020 - Shri Anil Bhati Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. are taken into consideration for adjudicating the dispute.

¶439

The petitioner has filed an application on 5.4.2018 before the respondent No.2 – the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region, Jodhpur for grant of one stage carriage permit to operate city bus on City Bus Route No.15 + 15 A, which came to be disposed of by the respondent No.2 vide order dated 31.5.2019 while observing that since sufficient number of public transport is available on the aforesaid route; there is no demand from the public at large to raise stage carriage permits; taking into consideration the prevalent traffic load and as there is no vacancy available, the application for issuance of additional/fresh stage carriage permit filed by the

¶440

(21 of 31)

¶441

[CW-13693/2020]

¶442

petitioner is liable to be rejected. The respondent No.2 has also observed that as per the order dated 27.2.2007 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in DBCWP

¶443

No.6073/1993 – Mahendra Lodha Vs. State of Rajasthan , the number of permits to the city buses cannot be issued more than 250 as per the observations made by the National Green Tribunal, Central Zone Bench, Bhopal in Application No.49/2014 about increasing pollution in the city of Jodhpur, it is not advisable to issue fresh stage carriage permits on the concerned city bus routes.

¶444

Being aggrieved with the rejection of the application filed by the petitioner vide order dated 31.5.2019, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, however, the said appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 28.2.2020 (Annex.7).

¶445

Being aggrieved with the orders dated 31.5.2019 and 28.2.2020 passed by the respondent Nos.2 and 4 respectively, the petitioners have preferred these writ petitions.

¶446

Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the action of the respondents of rejecting petitioners’ applications for issuance of additional/fresh stage

¶447

(22 of 31) [CW-13693/2020]

¶448

carriage permits on City Bus Route No.15 + 15A is absolutely illegal. It is further argued that the Division Bench of this Court in Mahendra Lodha’s case (supra) has restrained the number of permits up to 250 on the route in question, but as a matter of fact, against 250 permits, only 216 permits are in operation and, as such, vacancies are available, but the respondents have illegally rejected the applications filed by the petitioners while holding that no vacancy is available.

¶449

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’), no limit for grant of permits can be fixed under the said Act. It is argued that Subsection (3) of Section 71 of the Act of 1988 provides that the State Government could not exercise the function of limiting operation of vehicles by fixing the number of the same unless the Central Government forms an opinion in this regard.

¶450

It is argued that in the instant case, the Central Government has not formed any opinion with regard to number of such vehicles and, therefore, the action of the respondent Nos.2 and 4 of not granting stage carriage permits to the petitioners is absolutely illegal and without jurisdiction. It is submitted that in the absence of

¶451

(23 of 31) [CW-13693/2020]

¶452

necessary statistics, the respondent - transport

¶453

authorities cannot be allowed to reject the applications of the petitioners for grant of stage carriage permits merely by saying that there is no vacancy of permit and the route is adequately served by existing operators and further grant of permit will lead to congestion. It is further argued that the need of increase in permits on the concerned city bus route is very much there as the limit of issuing 250 permits was fixed way back in the year 2007 in Mahendra Lodha’s case (supra), however, after the year 2000, population is increased and the requirement of more public transport is very much there. It is also submitted that the existing number of permits i.e. 216 is not sufficient to cater the needs of the public at large, however, the respondent – transport authorities have failed to take into consideration the above situation and have illegally rejected the petitioners’ applications for issuing additional stage carriage permits on the route in question.

¶454

Learned counsel for the petitioners has also contended that the traffic on the concerned route is decreased since 2020 and, as such, issuance of additional stage carriage permits on the concerned route will not result in traffic congestion or increase of pollution. It is,

¶455

(24 of 31)

¶456

[CW-13693/2020]

¶457

thus, prayed that the impugned orders passed by the respondent – transport authorities may kindly be set aside and the respondent – transport authorities be directed to grant stage carriage permits to the petitioners on the city bus route No.15 + 15A in the Jodhpur city.

¶458

In support of the submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of the Kerala High Court rendered in the case of Saidalavi Vs. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram and Ors. [WP (C). No.10617 of 2013 (B). D/d. 06.10.2016] ; decision of Uttarakhand High Court in the case of Vivek Kumar Tandon Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors., reported in 2009 AIHC 1034 and decisions of the Madras High Court in the cases of S. Raja Vs. The Secretary (Home) Transport III Department, State Government of Tamilnadu & Ors. [W.P. No.12531 of 2020 and W.M.P.Nos.15782 and 15784 of 2020 D/d. 06.10.2020 and Thomas Madasamy Vs. The Regional Transport Officer Madurai [W.P.(MD) Nos.6729, 6730, 6731, 6732, 6733 and 6734 of 2019 and W.P. (MD) No.6729 of 2019 D/d. 23.07.2020.

¶459

Opposing the writ petitions, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the writ petitions filed by

¶460

(25 of 31)

¶461

[CW-13693/2020]

¶462

the petitioners are not maintainable as the petitioners are having an alternate and efficacious remedy of filing appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal as constituted under the provisions of Section 89(2) of the Act of 1988. The respondents have also urged that the petitioners have filed these writ petitions challenging the orders dated 31.5.2019 and 28.2.2020 passed by the respondent Nos.2 and 4 respectively and the letter dated 30.11.2002 issued by the Transport Commissioner and due to misjoinder clubbing of two different cause of actions, these writ petitions are not maintainable on merits.

¶463

Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the respondent – transport authorities have not committed any illegality in passing the impugned orders while taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case. It is submitted that at present, there is no need for increase of stage carriage permits on the concerned routes as sufficient number of public transport vehicles are plying on the said routes and increase in number of said permits will result into traffic congestion and increase of pollution. It is also argued that the Regional Transport Authority is very much in jurisdiction in declining to issue fresh permits on the

¶464

(26 of 31)

¶465

[CW-13693/2020]

¶466

concerned routes and there is no force in these writ petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed.

¶467

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶468

So far as the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents is concerned, I am of the view that merely availability of alternate remedy is not a bar in entertaining the writ petitions by the High Court while exercising its extra ordinary jurisdiction. It is true that ordinarily a writ court cannot entertain a petition where remedy of filing statutory appeal is available to the party, but it is also true that availability of alternate remedy itself is not a bar in entertaining a petition in its extra ordinary jurisdiction and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court can entertain a petition despite availability of alternate remedy.

¶469

The facts of the present case are clear and unambiguous, hence, this Court decides to ignore the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the respondents and proceeds to decide the writ petitions on merits.

¶470

So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that as per the provisions of Subsection 71(3) of the Act of 1988, the respondent –

¶471

(27 of 31) [CW-13693/2020]

¶472

transport authorities have no jurisdiction to limit the number of stage carriage permits or contract carriage permits until and unless the Central Government forms an opinion with regard to the number of vehicles, road conditions and other relevant factors is concerned, the same has lost its relevance because the number of stage carriage permits in the Jodhpur city is restricted up to 250 as per the directions issued by this Court in Mahendra Lodha’s case (supra). The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Mahendra Lodha’s case (supra) has passed the order dated 21.11.2000, relevant portion whereof, reads as under :

¶473

“G. One of the major pollutants identified in various affidavits is the Tempos. We are informed that there are about 436 Tempos plying in the city. In addition, there are three wheelers, city buses, mini doors.

¶474

Considering the material available on record, it is directed that there shall be complete ban on moving of tempos on the main road starting from Darpan Cinema to Sojati Gate, Railway Station and Jalori Gate. On these routes, the number of city buses shall also be reduced to 250.”

¶475

The said order/directions issued by the Division Bench in Mahendra Lodha’s case (supra) made absolute vide judgment dated 19.2.2007 while disposing the above-referred case. As such, it is clear that number

¶476

(28 of 31)

¶477

[CW-13693/2020]

¶478

of stage carriage permits for city buses on the concerned route i.e. 15 + 15A, starting from Darpan Cinema to Sojati Gate, Railway Station and Jalori Gate is restricted to 250.

¶479

Now the question remains as to whether the respondent – transport authorities are justified in rejecting the application filed by the petitioners for issuing stage carriage permits on the concerned city bus route. It is not in dispute that out of maximum limit of 250 stage carriage permits, only 216 are in currency. The respondent – transport authorities had refused to grant additional stage carriage permits on the concerned city bus route, firstly, on the ground that sufficient public transport is available on the concerned route and if the number of permits is increased on the said route, it may lead to traffic congestion and increase in pollution, whereas the National Green Tribunal, Central Zone Bench, Bhopal has already raised concern about increase of pollution in the Jodhpur city. The respondent – transport authorities have also observed that since sufficient number of public transport is available, there is no public demand to increase the means of public transport and taking into consideration the existing traffic congestion, it is not advisable to issue new permits. It is

¶480

(29 of 31) [CW-13693/2020]

¶481

true that under the liberalized policy, ordinarily the transport authorities should not refuse to grant permit, however, as per proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 80 of the Act of 1988, the Regional Transport Authority, State Transport Authority or any other prescribed Authority can refuse the application for grant of permit after providing reasons in writing and after providing opportunity of being heard to the applicant. In the present matter, opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioners and reasons have also been given by the respondent – transport authorities for refusing to issue new state carriage permit in favour of the petitioners.

¶482

The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that traffic on the concerned route is decreased is difficult to digest. The Division Bench of this Court, way back in the year 2000, after taking into consideration the traffic conditions and the possibility of increase in pollution, has restricted the number of permits on the concerned route up to 250 and it cannot be said that the traffic on the concerned route is decreased today i.e. in the year 2022 and risk of increase of pollution is not there. Everyone knows that with the increase of population, number of vehicles, private or public, have been increased enormously. The traffic on the said route increased

¶483

(30 of 31)

¶484

[CW-13693/2020]

¶485

manifold since year 2000 and, in such situation, no direction can at all be issued for increase in the permits.

¶486

Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the reasons supplied by the respondent – transport authorities for not issuing permits in favour of the petitioners cannot be said to be unreasonable or unjustified in any manner.

¶487

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mithilesh Garg and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors., [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1345 of 1989, decided on 22.11.1991] has held as under :

¶488

“17. …… It is not disputed that the Regional Transport Authority has the power under the Act to refuse an application for grant of permit by giving reasons. It is for the authority to take into consideration all the relevant factors at the time of quasijudicial consideration of the applications for grant of permits. The statutory authorities under the Act are bound to keep a watch on the erroneous and illegal exercise of power in granting permits under the liberalised policy.”

¶489

The Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. Kalyan Chakrabarty [M.A.T. Nos.1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 2356,

¶490

2357 and 2358 of 2005, decided on 8.9.2005] has held as under :

¶491

(31 of 31)

¶492

[CW-13693/2020]

¶493

“30. Considering all such facts and circumstances and having regard to the aforesaid discussion we are of the opinion that the respondent cannot be said to have unfettered right to get a permit for operating an Auto-Rickshaw in the route for which application was made. The right under Section 74 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is also subject to reasonable restrictions. Such restrictions may emanate from various sources which include a subsequent change of situation arising out of too little space for too many vehicles, congestion, pollution, road conditions, public conveyance and so on and so forth.”

¶494

There is no quarrel about the ratio of the judgments rendered by different High Courts on which learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance, however, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the same are of no help to the petitioners.

¶495

In view of the above discussion, the writ petitions being bereft of force are hereby dismissed.

¶496

Stay petitions are also dismissed.

¶497

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

¶498

ms rathore

Shri Yashpal Singh Charan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shri Yashpal Singh Charan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pushkar Raj Ameta Vs Union of India

Sarvashri Surya Associates Vs State of Rajasthan

Himmat Singh Shekhawat Vs State of Rajasthan

Mehardin Vs State of Rajasthan

Shri Mahendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Shri Hari Singh Vs State of Rajasthan