[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Hanumandas vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:20865) on 1 May, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:20865]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2746/2025
Hanumandas S/o Mukund Lal, Aged About 52 Years, R/o 2 G.g.r.,
Tehsil Tibbi District - Hanumangarh Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Transport Commissioner
Com Secretary Transport Department Parivahan Bhawan ,
Sahkar Bhawan Marg, Jaipur (Raj. )
2. Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner Region Parivahan
Bhawan , Sahkar Bhawan Marg, Jaipur (Raj. )
3. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority Bikaner Region
Bikaner (Raj.)
4. District Transport Officer, Abohar Road District Police Line
Hanumangarh
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurabh Maheshwari
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Milap Chopra
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Order
01/05/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order
dated 20.12.2024 passed by the respondent No.3, whereunder the
right of the petitioner to make an application for special permit
and to consider such application was denied by way of the
impugned order.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that previously the
petitioner was granted permanent permit to operate on the
Hanumangarh Ellenabad interstate route and some third party has
challenged the said permit in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
(Downloaded on 01/05/2025 at 09:56:04 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20865] (2 of 4) [CW-2746/2025]
10731/2024 : Hari Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and this
Court in the said writ petition has stayed the permit vide order
dated 19.07.2024. Consequent to the said stay order the
respondent authorities have directed the petitioner not to operate
the vehicle bearing No. RJ31 PA 4959 on the Hanumangarh
Ellenabad interstate route.
3. It appears that the third party has made a complaint to the
authorities complaining that inspite of stay order granted by this
Court and communication addressed by the respondent
authorities, the petitioner continues to operate on the said route.
On the basis of such allegations, the impugned order has been
passed.
4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is
not operating the vehicle bearing No. RJ31 PA 4959 on the
Hanumangarh Ellenabad interstate route on account of the stay
order passed by this Court and consequential proceedings issued
by the respondent authorities. However, he has a right to operate
on the other route basing on the special permit. According to him,
by virtue of the impugned order his right to operate the vehicle on
the special permitted route has been deprived. Therefore, he is
before this Court.
5. Mr. Milap Chopra, learned counsel for the respondent - State
submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to operate the vehicle
on the Hanumangarh Ellenabad interstate route on account of the
stay order passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.10731/2024 and consequential proceedings issued by the
respondent authorities. However, if any application is filed by the
petitioner seeking special permit to operate on a different route
(Downloaded on 01/05/2025 at 09:56:04 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20865] (3 of 4) [CW-2746/2025]
other than the Hanumangarh Ellenabad interstate route, the
application of the petitioner would be considered basing on the
applicable law.
6. In the background of the said submissions, Section 88 Sub-
Section 8 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Act of 1988) is relevant, which reads hereunder:
"88. Validation of permits for use outside region
in which granted.--
.....
(8) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section
(1), but subject to any rules that may be made under
this Act by the Central Government, the Regional
Transport Authority of any one region or, as the case
may be, the State Transport Authority, may, for the
convenience of the public, 1[grant a special permit to
any public service vehicle including any vehicle
covered] by a permit issued under section 72
(including a reserve stage carriage) or under section
74 or under sub-section (9) of this section for carrying
a passenger or passengers for hire or reward under a
contract, express or implied, for the use of the vehicle
as a whole without stopping to pick up or set down
along the line of route passengers not included in the
contract, and in every case where such special permit
is granted, the Regional Transport Authority shall
assign to the vehicle, for display thereon, a special
distinguishing mark in the form and manner specified
by the Central Government and such special permit
shall be valid in any other region or State without the
countersignature of the Regional Transport Authority of
the other region or of the State Transport Authority of
the other State, as the case may be.
….”
7. From a reading of the above provision it is clear that dehors
the permit covered under Section 72, 74 and 88(9) of the Act of
1988, the operator is entitled to seek a special permit for a
particular route which is of temporary nature. This right of the
petitioner cannot be deprived on the strength of certain
(Downloaded on 01/05/2025 at 09:56:04 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20865] (4 of 4) [CW-2746/2025]
complaints made by a third party. If the petitioner is operating on
the Hanumangarh Ellenabad interstate route contrary to the High
Court’s order and consequential proceedings issued by the
respondents authorities, it is open for the authorities to take
appropriate steps under the Act. However, in guise of such
allegations the petitioner cannot be deprived of his right to seek
special permit for a route as and when necessity arises.
8. In the result, the impugned order, to the extent of
prohibiting the petitioner from grant of any kind of special permit,
is set aside. The petitioner is given liberty to file fresh application
seeking permission to operate on any route other than the route
covered in the writ petition. Any such application if filed by the
petitioner, the same shall be considered forthwith by the
respondent authorities, without being influenced by the previous
permit granted under Section 72 of the Act of 1988 which was
stayed by this Court in the other writ petition. It is needless to
observe that once the order impugned is set aside, the authorities
are duty bound to unblock the petitioner.
9. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
10. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
353-BhumikaP/-
(Downloaded on 01/05/2025 at 09:56:04 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link