KANKER ROADWAYS Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners made an application under Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 inter alia pleading that though the route between Jagdalpur to Kondagaon is covered under the scheme, but as the respondent/state Road Transport Corporation was not operating under the said scheme on the said route, the'petitioners were entitled to a temporary permit on the strength of the proviso appended to Section 104 of the Act. The said application was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority holding that as the route is covered under the scheme and State Road Transport Corporation was operating as many as 62 trips covering the area under the scheme, and as there was no felt need for the public at large, the petitioners were not entitled to temporary permit. Against the said order of rejection of the application, the petitioners/operators have filed this writ petition.

(2.) AT the threshold, Shri Dhande, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 has raised an objection relating to maintainability of the petition. According to him, the order passed by the R. T. A. can be challenged in appeal before the S. T. A. T. and as the petitioners have not availed the alternative remedy, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) IN reply to the objection, learned counsel for petitioners submits that as their application has been rejected in view of sub-section (2) of Section 103, and as no appeal lies against an action taken under Section 103 sub- section (3), they are constrained to file the petition. His further submission is that an application filed under proviso to Section 104 is to be decided under Section 104 and provisions of Section 87 of the Act would not be applicable to such a situation. I have heard the parties at length.