JUDGMENT
Kokje, J.
1. This is an appeal filed by the original petitioner whose petition has been disposed of in the light of decision in S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No. 66/92, decided on December 7, 1992 (Ajaib Singh v. R.T.A., Bikaner).
2. The appellant-petitioner holds a state carriage permit on Bhilwara to Beawar route. He had prayed for a writ restraining the Regional Transport Authority from entertaining, considering and granting state carriage permit, temporary or non-temporary on the route covered by a Draft Scheme prepared by the State Transport undertaking (R. S. R. T. C), under Section 68C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short ‘the Act’ hereinafter). The three routes covered by this Draft Scheme were (i) Bhilwara to Beawar via Mandal, Haripura, (ii) Bhilwara to Deoli via Baneda, and (iii) Beawar to Karesa via Asind route and portions thereof.
3. This Draft Scheme is stated to have been published in Rajasthan Gazette in the year 1991. As per clause (4) of the said Draft Scheme, the R.S.R.T.C. and any other State Transport undertaking pursuant to any reciprocal transport agreement were exclusively entitled to provide passenger transport services and no other person would be authorised to ply the state carriage or contract carriage services on the route. The Draft Scheme published under Section 68C of the Act is a Law and has overriding effect over Chapter-IV of the 1939 Act which is analogous to Chapter-V of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as per the petitioner.
4. In support of the aforesaid contention, the appellant-petitioner relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Krishna Verma v. State of U.P., AIR 1992 SC 1888.
5. In reply to the petition, the respondents have contended that the appellant-petitioner had no locus standi to maintain the petition as the only affected party could be the State Transport Authority for whose benefit the routes were reserved by the Draft Scheme. They also contended that a Draft Scheme is always subject to approval and cannot be taken to be a law.
6. It has been contended before us that the Draft Scheme had not later on reached finality by approval It has, therefore, to be
seen whether a Draft Scheme by itself is a law. In the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Krishna’s case (AIR 1992 SC 1888), heavily relied on by the appellant-petitioner, such a broad proposition has not been laid down by the Supreme Court.
7. In the portion of the decision in Ram Krishna’s case, extracted by the appellant-petitioner in Paragraph 4 of the memorandum of appeal itself, what is stated is “consistent law laid down by this Court is that Draft Scheme under Section 68C and approved Scheme under Section 68D of Chap-ter-IVA of the repealed Act is a law and it has overriding effect over Chapter-IV of the repealed Act of the Chapter-V of the Act…..”.
8. We are sorry to say that the reproduction of the extract is not correct and whether deliberate or otherwise, a twist has been sought to be given to the language used by the Supreme Court in the ruling. In the report of the case in the All India Reporter as well as the extract from it reproduced by the learned single Judge of this Court in Charanjit v. R.T.A., Bikaner, AIR 1993 Raj 134, the words are as follows (para 3) :
“Draft Scheme under Section 68C and approved under Section 68D of Chapler-lVA of the repealed Act…..”.
9. The plain meaning of the word is that the Draft Scheme under Section 68C which is approved under Section 68D is a law and not that a Draft Scheme independently and irrespective of whether it was ultimately approved or not would be a law.
10. The same interpretation has been put by a learned single Judge of this Court on the words in Smt. Durga Devi v. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan Jaipur (S. B. Civil Writ Petn. No. 5434, 93), decided on January 21, 1994 (reported in AIR 1994 Raj. 238).
11. It has not been shown that a Draft, Scheme would independently be a law even if it was not ultimately finalised. We have therefore, no difficulty in holding that in this case, the Draft Scheme on the basis of which
the grant of permits to other private operators is being sought to be challenged was not a law. The appellant-petitioner has no case on merit itself and, therefore, the question of maintainability of the writ petition is a relegated to the back ground.
12. Even on the question of maintaina-bility, it was brought to our notice that the appellant-petitioner himself has got his permit renewed on the routes covered by the Draft Scheme. If that is so, it is all the more reasonable that the appellant-petitioner should not be allowed to put a spoke in the wheel when other private operators apply for permits on the routes.
13. The appeal has no force and it is dismissed with costs which is quantified at Rs. 2500/- payable by the appellant-petitioner to the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4.