(1.) The admitted position is that the writ petitioner is already a temporary permit holder under Section 68-F(1-C) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The authorities have again called for applications for two more temporary permits in the notified area itself for different routes. We are only concerned with regard to one of the routes as the other has been reserved for Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes. So the petitioner also filed an application for the purpose of granting temporary permit in his favour. The Regional Transport Authority has rejected the case of the petitioner though he got highest marks on the ground that he is already holding a temporary permit and, therefore, he cannot be treated as a new entrant Consequently the next candidate who got next highest marks was given the temporary permit and by virtue of the same, he is, in fact, plying ever since 1987. It is that order that is challenged contending that the petitioner cannot be denied to be treated as a new entrant because there is no statutory provision inhibiting such of the temporary perit holders to apply for a new permit even if he has a temporary one. Secondly Rule 212 of the Motor Vehicles Rules is not applicable to the cases of those who are holding temporary permits under Section 68-F(l-C) of the Act and where applications have been called for temporary permits for a different route though in a notified area. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this court in K.V. Janardhanam vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh (1) wherein it is held that a temporary permit holder cannot be denied a pucca permit on the ground that he is not a new entrant. Rule 212 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules reads as follows:
(2.) Bearing in mind the above, it has now to be considered as to whether the petitioner who is admittedly holding a temporary permit under Section 68-F(1-C) of the Act is entitled to apply for another temporary permit in a notified area for a different route? Under Sub-rule (ii) (a) of Rule 212 of the A.P.M.V Rules preference on short routes shall be given to new entrant whenever there is an application or applications from new entrants for purposes of comparison of marks.
(3.) It is not in dispute that there is no definition of 'new entrant.' There is no good reason as to why Rule 212 wherein certain guiding principles are laid down should not be extended to and be made applicable to the cases arising not only under Chapter IV but also under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The scheme and object to be gathered and the principle laid down under Rule 212 is that where a person is having existing permit, though temporary one, he should not be encouraged to apply, treating him as a new entrant, for purposes of obtaining another temporary permit for a route whether it is a notified area or otherwise. The basic object is that there should not be any monopoly in routes being taken up by a single individual obtaining licence in respect of more than one. If that be so, there is no good reason as to why a temporary permit holder even if it is under Section 68-F(1-C) of the Act should be allowed to be considered as a new entrant to compete with other applicants who are not temporary permit holders at all. That would defeat the very purpose of the guiding rule. Indeed this construction is encouraged by the fact that ours is a welfare state and the preamble proclaims that our republic is a Socialist Republic so that the object of welfare state may be achieved by properly distributing the gains that are made at the instance of the State to be duly shared and thereby obviating the monopoly. Hence 1 have no hesitation to hold that the order of the Regional Transport Authority is perfectly justified and I hold that Rule 212 of the A.P.M.V. Rules and the guiding principles laid down therein are equally applicable to the cases of the temporary permit holders under Section 68-F(1-C) of the Act, barring them from applying to the temporary permits to be issued for another route in the notified area treating them as new entrants.