MAA KASI MOTORS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in the present revisional application, dated 31st March, 1988, moved a writ application, challenging the order of the respondent No. 1, refusing their application for temporary permit as communicated by the letter of the said respondent, dated 30th May, 1988 CO. No. 12899(W) of 1988 was issued and in connection therewith a temporary permit, was granted on 6th March, 1989. Since thereafter, by moving the Courts of Writ, the petitioners continued with temporary permits, granted from time to time, upto 4th July, 1989, whereafter an application for renewal of the last temporary permit was made and rejected by the respondents. The respondent No. 4 was moved against the said order of refusal, embodied in the resolution through an appeal, being STA Appeal No. 19 of 1989, which had been pending till 27th February, 1992, and was dismissed on that date on the ground of non-filing of the certified copy of the impugned resolution. Till the date dismissal of the appeal, as aforesaid, temporary permits in favour of the petitioners were being granted under the orders of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and the petitioners substantial ground, which had been pressed before the Tribunal, was that in spite of an application and reminder the respondent No. 1 failed to deliver the certified copy of the impugned resolution, which was challenged in the said appeal. The present revisional application has been moved, challenging the aforesaid order of dismissal of the appeal and prayer has been made for an interim injunction seeking to restrain the respondents from interfering with the plying of the vehicle of the petitioners.

(2.) By production of records it has been argued by the State Transport Authority that the appeal in question had been preferred upon an assumption of rejection of the petitioners' prayer for temporary permit, though due to shortness of time, intervening between the application for such permit and the alleged data of rejection, no resolution could be passed or had been passed and as such no question of delivery of certified copy could arise on the date of filing of the appeal. The appeal, thus, according to the respondents, was misconceived. Secondly, it was argued that on the basis of an imaginary rejection the petitioners went on enjoying the benefits for temporary permits for period of time more than that envisaged by statutory provisions as the life of temporary permit. Thirdly, it was argued that the statutory condition of section 87 of the Motor Vehicles Act not having been fulfilled, no claim for temporary permit could be maintained.

(3.) We have considered very carefully the arguments made by Mr. Bihani on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Seth on behalf of the respondents Admittedly, the petitioners' application, culminating with the present proceeding, had been made on or about 21st of June, 1989 and till the last date of dismissal of the appeal the petitioners enjoined the benefits of temporary permits granted from time to time.