Full Judgment
A.K. Mathur, J.
1. The petitioner by this writ petition has prayed that the notification of the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur dated 31-10-1985, published in Part VII of the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated 14-11-1987 in respect of allowing extension of Jodhpur--Dhundhara--Bhadrajun--Ahore--Sayala--Jalore amalgamated route by having inclusion of villages Sukarlai Muliawas--Raoji-ki-Dhani and Roopwas be quashed It was also prayed that the Regional Transport Authority may be restrained from considering the inclusion of these villages in the aforesaid amalgamated route.
2. The brief facts which are relevant for the convenient disposal of this writ petition are that the petitioner holds a non-temporary stage carriage route being the transferee of Mohan Lal son of Shri Ghewar Singh resident of Sojat City. There is another route: Jodhpur--Dhundhara--Bhadrajun--Ahore--Sayala--Jalore amalgamated route having a scope of 14 stage carriage to perform six trips. The Existing Operators of the Jodhpur-Dhundhara-Bhadrajun-Ahore-Sayala--Jalore amalgamated route submitted application for the extension of the said route by including the village before the Regional Transport Authority Jodhpur. The applications were published in the Rajasthan Rajpa ra dated 14-11-1985 under the signatures of Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur for inviting objections under Section, 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act (here in after referred to 'the Act') within 30 days from the date of publication in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. The extended route overlaps the route of the petitioner. The petitioner and other operators of the petitioner's route namely, Pali-Gelawas--Dhundhara--Manjal have also submitted the applications for inclusion in their route of village Mooliawas, Kukarlai and Pucca portion of Jetpur to Mandawas before the Regional Transport Authority As result, the operators of Jodhpur-Dhundhara--Bhadrajun--Ahore--Sayal-Jalore amalgamated route would materially overlap the petitioner's route. Therefore, the petitioner submitted that he was highly aggrieved for Therefore, the petitioner submitted that he was highly aggrieved for opposing the applications of the operators of the aforesaid route. It is alleged that when the present permit was tran ferred to him by Shri Mohan Lal he informed about the publication of the notification dated 14-11-1985. There after, he made enquiries and came to know that the Gazette Notification dated 14-11-1985 was never issued and despatched before 3-12-1985. Since this notification did not see the light of the day before 3-12-1985, therefore, it is bad in law as the objectors could not get a clear 30 days time to file objections under Section 57(3) of the Act. Thus, the petitioner approached this court by filing the present writ petition and praying that in view of the decisions given in Yadu Raj Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 1987(1) WLN 304 the present notificat on for inclusion of the villages on the request of the operators of Jodhpur-Dhundhara-Bhadrajun-Ahore-Sayal--Jalore amalgamated route is bad and, therefore, this notification should be quashed and the Regional Transport Authority should be restrained from proceeding in the matter.
3. A return has been filed on behalf of one Babulal Jain through Shri R.R. Vyas. Mr. Vyas was permitted to intervene in the matter. Mr. Vyas in his application has pointed out that D.B. Civil writ Petition No. 1351 of 1987 Babulal Jain v. Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur was filed in which the petitioner Pradeep Kumar moved an application for being impleaded as a party on behalf of himself as well as on behalf of other objectors of his route Ramesh Kumar son of Shri Jaisingh resident of Pali. In this application, Pradeep Kumar and Ramesh Kumar in para 1 had stated that they had submitted valid objections in writing within time and quite in accordance with law as required under Section 57 (3) and (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act. They further prayed that both Pradeep Kumar and Ramesh Kumar may be impleaded as parties in the writ petition or in the alternative they may be heard as intervenors. Copy of the application has been placed on record as Annex. A. 1. After hearing both the parties, this Court ordered as under:
Accordingly, the Regional Transport Authority Jodhpur is directed to consider the petitioner's application as far as possible today or at the earliest. While considering the petitioner's application, all objections if ripe for consideration shall also be considered by the Regional Transport Authority Jodhpur.
4. From this it is clear that the petitioner as transferee of Mohan Lal had already filed objections before the Regional Transport Authority against the publication of the applications of the applicants for inclusion of villages in their route as such it is not open for the petitioner now to challenge that notification which was issued on 14-11-1985 being bad as clear 30 days time was not available to the objectors under Section 57(3) of the Act.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. So far as the ratio laid down in Yaduraj Singh's case (supra) is concerned, since appeal against that order is already pending before the Division Bench and the arguments have been heard, therefore, it will not be proper for us to express any opinion in respect of Yaduraj Singh's case. But we would like to add one thing that so far as the petitioner is concerned it is not open for him to raise these objections. Since he has already filed objections under Section 57(3) of the Act and acquiesced in the situation it is not open for him to turn back and challenge the very notification. The conduct of the petitioner disentitles him to challenge that he could not get 30 days clear notice under Section 57(3) of the Act. In case any party has availed the opportunity of filing the objections within the time then it is not open for that party to raise a plea that he did not get a clear 30 days notice. After all notice under Section 57(3) is to inform the public at large that permits are likely to be granted on the route in question. Therefore, they can file their representation. A pedantic approach cannot be taken for a party which having filed objections within time to make a grouse that clear 30 days notice was not given to him as required under Section 57(3) of the Act. In the case where the objector filed objections within 30 days then such objectors cannot be heard to say that they could not get 30 days notice, therefore, the whole notification should be quashed. The conduct of such objector cannot be countenance and specially in the present case when the petitioner in the writ petition of Babu Lal Jain has taken the position that he has already filed the objections and on the basis thereof a direction was issued by this Court as aforesaid.
6. In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed.