CLX-RAJ-HC-2026-005828

PURSHOTTAM DAS - Appellant Versus S.T.A.T. - Respondent

Rajasthan High Court · Rajasthan

Dismissed

Core ratio / Key holding

The High Court, in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will not interfere with findings of fact recorded by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal unless there are compelling grounds. A challenge to a time-table issued by the Regional Transport Authority, for which an objection period was provided but not utilized by the petitioner, cannot be entertained in a writ petition. The statutory restriction under Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, limiting route extension to not more than 24 kms, does not apply if the alleged extensions are made on different routes.

Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.226 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Writ Jurisdiction - Findings of Fact - Interference

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.80(3) - Route Extension - 24 Kms Limit - Different Routes

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Time-table - Challenge - Objection Period - Non-utilization

Issues for determination

  • Whether a route can be extended for more than 24 kms in length under Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
  • Whether the petitioner has locus standi to challenge the route extension.
  • Whether the High Court can interfere with findings of fact recorded by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in writ jurisdiction.
  • Whether the challenge to the time-table issued by the Secretary to the R.T.A. is maintainable in the present writ petition.

Ratio decidendi

  • The High Court, in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will not interfere with findings of fact recorded by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal unless there are compelling grounds.
  • A challenge to a time-table issued by the Regional Transport Authority, for which an objection period was provided but not utilized by the petitioner, cannot be entertained in a writ petition.
  • The statutory restriction under Section 80(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, limiting route extension to not more than 24 kms, does not apply if the alleged extensions are made on different routes.

Important points

  • Writ petition challenging route extension and time-table dismissed, upholding Tribunal's findings.
  • High Court declined to interfere with Tribunal's finding that route extensions were on different routes, thus not violating 24 km limit under Motor Vehicles Act, S.80(3).
  • Challenge to time-table rejected as petitioner failed to raise objections before authorities within the stipulated 15-day period.
  • Petitioner's locus standi questioned by respondent, with Tribunal noting petitioner also obtained similar route extensions.

Keywords

Motor Vehicles ActRoute Extension24 Kms RuleLocus StandiTime-table

Related orders from this authority

Read the full order on ClaimLex

Get the complete order text, a licence-stamped PDF, the citator (which orders cite this one), AI-powered answers, and save it to your matters.

Editorial summary prepared by ClaimLex — for reference only, not the official record. Please refer to the original order issued by the authority for the authoritative text.