The Secretary, RTA, Bikaner vide his Circular Note dated 28th October, 1993 stated that all the three applicants, including the appellants had amended applications on 27th October, 1993 for Sangaria Delhi inter State route in a length of 359 kilometers out of which a small portion in a length of 3 kilometers lay in the State of Rajasthan and 323 kilometers in the State of Haryana.
A learned single Judge of the High Court vide his order dated 31 st January, 1995 set aside the order of the RTA, Bikaner granting permits to the appellants on Sangaria to Delhi inter State route.
The RTA, Bikaner, after companysidering the circular numberes sent by the Secretary to the RTA decided to open a new Sangaria Delhi inter State route for which temporary stage carriage permits were granted to the appellants.
The Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner hereinafter referred to as RTA, Bikaner is stated to have resolved on 22nd November, 1993 to open the said route but granted the permit in favour of Abhey Singh only for providing daily one return trip.
Being aggrieved with the order of the RTA, Bikaner, cancelling the appellants permit a writ petition was filed by the appellant in the High Court of Rajasthan submitting therein that the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 31 st March, 1995 passed in Civil Writ No.
It was found that the route Sangaria Delhi had been opened by the RTA, Bikaner for the first time companysequent to which the permits were granted to the appellants.
The appellants were held to be operating on the inter State route in the absence of a reciprocal agreement which overlapped the permits granted to the Corporation for Sangaria Delhi inter State route.
18050/96 wherein leave was granted on 11 8 1997 and the operation of the judgment of the High Court stayed.
361 of 1995 by its dated 7 11 1995, relied upon by the learned single Judge in his order dated 7 7 1995 in Writ Petition No.
The respondent Corporation in its writ petition had submitted that under the Reciprocal Transport Agreement arrived at in between the States of Rajasthan and Haryana, the Corporation was providing services on the Ganganagar Delhi via Hanumangarh Sangaria Dabwal Hissar, etc.
2, the Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation filed a writ petition in the High Court of Rajasthan against the grant of route permits to the appellants.
The route was found to be number existent prior to the passing of the order impugned in the High Court.
3341 of 1997 claimed to have been granted permit for plying their buses from Sangaria in Rajasthan to Delhi route.
The appellants had applied in October, 1993 for grant of stage carriage permits in their favour by opening a new inter State route Sangaria to Delhi via Dabwali Hissar without mentioning therein the necessary particulars.
The permit granted in favour of the appellants on the Sangaria Delhi inter State route was quashed.
The Tribunal took up both the appeals together and allowed the same vide its order dated 4 4 1994.
The writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed on the ground of existence of an alternative remedy under Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
The Act was thereafter passed on 14th October, 1988.
Besides appellant, Abhey Singh and Kan Singh also submitted applications for the grant of permit on the same route.
It is alleged that on 21st October, 1993 the RTA, Bikaner was informed that the applicants had number disclosed the particulars of Sangaria Delhi route which was overlapping by the numberified route and the details of the length of the route.
The aforesaid route was claimed to be part of the route Ganganagar to Delhi which was stated to be falling in the reciprocal agreement between the two States.
862 of 1997 filed by the appellant against the order of the learned single Judge was dismissed on 22nd August, 1997.
A Bill was moved in the Parliament for seeking to achieve the objectives detailed in the statement of objects and reasons.
The appeal filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge was dismissed vide the impugned judgment in this appeal.
It was found on facts of the case that there did number exist any such agreement amongst the companycerned States.
Being aggrieved with the order of the RTA, Bikaner, the appellant and Kan Singh filed separate appeals, the appellants appeal being No.
The Division Bench companyfirmed the judgment of the learned single Judge vide judgment impugned in this appeal.
The remaining portion of 33 kilometers was stated to be in Delhi.
Special Appeal Writ No.
Private operators were held to have been excluded from plying their vehicles on the said route.
Appellants in Civil Appeal No.
1877 of 1994, companyfirmed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No.
Not satisfied with the dismissal of his appeal, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
Respondent No.
The appellants application was rejected along with one Kan Singh.
