NARBADA BUS SERVICE Vs. SECRETARY R T A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a bus operator, who is running the aforesaid business in the name and style of Narbada Bus Service. The petitioner applied for grant of a regular stage carriage permit under section 46 of the Motor Vehicles Act on the route Nasrullaganj-Ashta via Kannod-Khategaon and Gopalpur on 23-1-1989. The application is pending with the RTA, Ujjain. A copy of the application is Annexure-A. The respondent No. 2 applied for the grant of a temporary permit under section 62 (1) (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act on 8-3-1989 before the Secretary, RTA, Ujjain for the route Nasrullaganj-Ashta. The petitioner filed an objection on 7-3-1989 against the grant of the said temporary permit on the route in question in favour of respondent No. 2, inter alia contending that as the application for grant of regular stage carriage is pending under section 46 of the Motor Vehicles Act on this route, temporary permit can be granted to the respondent No. 2 in view of the provisions contained in the proviso to section 62 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Secretary, RTA on 9-3-1989 passed an order on the application that the case be put up for hearing before the RTA in its meeting to be held on 4-4-1989. However, an order was also passed on 14-3-1989 reviewing the earlier order whereby it was directed that a temporary permit be issued for one month, subject to the decision of objection. It is the order dated 14-3-1989 which has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the order is without jurisdiction and is passed without determining the existence of a temporary need.

(2.) IN reply to the show cause notice issued by this Court on the petition, the respondent No. 2 has stated that the petition has been filed against the order of Secretary, RTA, Ujjain passed on 14-3-1989 without seeking recourse to section 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act which provides for an appeal or revision before the S:t. A. T. Therefore, in view of the existence of an alternative remedy this petition is not maintainable. It has further been averred that the order being an interlocutory order no interference is called for. It has also been stated in the reply that the respondent No. 2 had applied for the grant of temporary permit before the RTA, Ujjain on two routes i. e. Baibodi to Ashta and Nasrullaganj to Ashta. The petitioner had objected to the grant of the temporary permits, but that objection was overruled and the permits were granted to the respondent against which the petitioner did not file any appeal or revision. That is why, that order having become final the petitioner is estopped from challenging the subsequent grant of temporary permit. It has also been stated that the routes Baibodi to Ashta and Nasrullaganj to Ashta are common routes between Gopalpur and Ashta except variation of 8 kms. A temporary permit on route Baibodi to. Ashta was granted by the Secretary, RTA to the petitioner which he did not lift whereas the answering respondent lifted the permit and operated on the route. There was dispute about the timings which was also resolved vide Annexure R-3. Therefore also the petition is not tenable. A new ground has been raised that as the application for grant of permanent permit has neither been processed for published under Section 57 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act the application for grant of permanent permit cannot be treated as a pending application. Therefore, there is no bar of the first proviso to section 62 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act in grant of a temporary permit. Therefore, the grant is in accordance with law and cannot be said to be without jurisdiction.

(3.) ALTHOUGH the Tribunal has been made a party, and we do not know whether it has been served or not, but the contesting parties being before us with the consent of both the parties the matter was finally heard.