MATA DIN YADAV Vs. COMMISSIONER JHANSI DIVISION JHANSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard both the counsel for the parties, but find no merit in this petition.

(2.) The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, an existing operator, is that the application filed by the respondent 4 for the grant of temporary permit should have been rejected as it did not disclose any purpose contemplated under S.62 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(3.) The submission is devoid of any merit. In the application the respondent No. 3 had generally mentioned the need of the travelling public as the purpose for which the grant was sought. It is true that in the application the purpose mentioned was not very specific. But, the impugned order clearly states the purpose for which temporary permit was being granted in favour of respondent 2. It refers to the Government Order dt. 25-3-1987 issued under S.43A of the Act under which directions were issued to the S.T.A. and R.T.A. to increase the strength on routes where there has been no increase in the stage carriage permits for the last several years. The reason stated for such a notification is the increase in population, trade, transit and Government work etc etc. The purpose disclosed, therefore, is an increasing need for having more vehicles operating on the routes in respect of which no increase in the strength had taken place for the last five years.