KULWANT SINGH Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner Shri Kulwant Singh is seeking to challenge the resolution dated 21 -5 -80 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as the R.T.A) where by a temporary permit was sanctioned to three persons, including Shri Biharilal respondent no 2, on the Udaipur to Pratapgarh route via Dibari gate, Meetha Neem, Bhatewar Kharoda and Boinder.

(2.) THE petitioner holds a non -temporary permit on the aforesaid route. The permit that was originally granted to the petitioner was on the Udaipur Pratapgarh route via Debatigate, Daroli, Bhatewar, Kharoda and Blander On account of the schemes for nationalisation of motor transport on the Udaipur Bhatwara route and the Udaipur Ajmer route notified under Section 68 D of the Motor Vehicles Act, the route of the petitioner was curtailed and the portion from Uiaipur to Bhatawar was excluded with effect from 20.h October, 1975 Subsequently the petitioner was granted extension of the rout from Bhatewar in Udaipur by in alternative route via Kheroda, Meetha Neem and Debari Gate. The scope fixed for the route is eight permits with five return services Respondent No. 2 had submitted an application fir grant of a temporary permit on the aforesaid route. The said application of respondent No. 2 was listed in the agenda for the meeting of the RTA fixed for 10 -4 -80, but on that day it could not be considered and it was adjourned to be considered at the meeting of the RTA to b held at Jaipur on 28 -4 -80 The application of the respondent No. 2 was considered by the RT.A on 21 -5 -80 and the R.T.A by its res(sic)lation dated 21 -5 -80 granted a temparary permit in favour of respondent No. 2 In (sic)uance of the said resolution the RTA, respondent No. 2 secured a temporary permit on l0th July, 1980 Bring aggrieved by the aforesaid grant of temporary permit in favour of respondent No. 2, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) IN the writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the resolution of of the RTA granting a temporary permit in favour of respondent No. 2 on the ground that there was no urgent temporary need justifying the grant of a temporary permit. Respondent No. 2 has entered a caveat and has apposed the writ petiton.