JUDGMENT
Anshuman Singh, J.
1. The facts giving rise to this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lie in a narrow compass.
2. The petitioner was holding non-temporary stage Carriage Permit No.3325 under which he was plying Bus No. RJV-1501 of 1965 model. The said permit was valid upto 30.10.93. He submitted an application for renewal of the aforesaid permit, on 24.9.93 within the period prescribed under Section 81 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) before the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur. The application made by the petitioner was allowed by the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur, but while .allowing the application for renewal condition No. 3 was imposed to the effect that the petitioner would replace his vehicle by a prescribed model vehicle by 31.3.94, failing which the grant, of renewal would stand automatically revoked. The petitioner feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order of the RTA, Jaipur preferred an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal Rajasthan, Jaipur which was dismissed by the STAT vide order dated 8.6.94. The petitioner feeling aggrieved against the order dated 8.6.94 passed by the STAT has approached this Court in the instant writ petition. Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.2 i.e. the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur Region, Jaipur disputing the .contentions raised in the writ petition.
3. I have heard Mr. O.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Praveen Balwada, learned counsel for the RTA, Jaipur. The main thrust of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that in the circular issued by the RTA, Jaipur no year was specified in respect of model of the vehicle by which the present vehicle was required to be replaced. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that prescribing the model condition was mandatory requirement under Section 56 and 59 of the Act and in the absence of the same, the order passed by the RTA, Jaipur imposing model condition while renewing the Permit was wholly illegal and arbitrary. A copy of the Resolution dated 3.1.91 issued by RTA, Jaipur has been filed along with reply and in Column No. 3 it has been mentioned that the age of vehicle for Class A, B and C should not be beyond 15, 25 and 25 years, respectively which, clearly indicates that this Resolution has been passed by the RTA specifying the age of model vehicle classwise and according to their routs for the purpose of grant of a new permit and also for the purpose of renewal. In view of the said fact, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is wholly devoid of merit: and deserves to be rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the R.T.A. and S.T.A.T. both have no jurisdiction to impose the condition regarding replacement of model vehicle at the time of renewal of permit. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the controversy whether the condition regarding replacement of vehicle at the time of grant of renewal of permit can be imposed or not has been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment in which it has been held by the Division Bench that the Authorities possess such powers for imposing condition regarding replacement of vehicle at the time of grant/renewal of permit. In support of his contention he placed reliance on Division Bench’s judgment rendered in the case of Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur Region v. Sita Ram 1992 (2) RLW 344. 1 have carefully perused the judgment as aforesaid and find that the controversy raised by the petitioner in the instant petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment against the petitioner and, therefore, I am of the view that the order passed by the RTA, Jaipur imposing condition regarding replacement of model vehicle is wholly just, valid and permissible under the law. Another argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that even if the R.T.A. had jurisdiction of imposing condition regarding replacement of vehicle, further time may be allowed to the petitioner to replace the vehicle. In my view, R.T.A. has given sufficient time to the petitioner to replace the vehicle within the prescribed period and if the petitioner failed to replace his vehicle within the period specified, he has to blame himself for not doing so, as the condition imposed by the R.T.A. is wholly valid. Since, the renewal of permit was conditional and the petitioner having failed to comply with the condition, he cannot claim renewal of permit without complying with the condition imposed by the R.T.A. in its renewal order. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has urged that the instant petition is not maintainable as the petitioner has not impleaded the State Government as party to the Writ Petition as provided under Article 300 of the Constitution of India and the petition be dismissed on this ground alone. In support of his contention he placed reliance on Division Bench’s judgment of this Court rendered in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.540 of 1994 : The Regional Transport Officer and Ors. v. Pradeep Kumar Jain decided on 8.9.1994. Since, I have already taken the view that the petitioner has failed to make out a case on merit it is not necessary to dismiss the petition on this technical ground.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the impugned-orders passed by the respondents, I am of the opinion that the petition is wholly devoid of merit and deserves to be rejected.
5. In the result, petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.