SHRIKISHAN SAYARDEVI Vs. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case was fixed for orders on stay application today, but on the request of the learned counsel for the parties the main writ petition was taken up for hearing.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) A temporary permit was granted to the respondent No. 3 on Ajmer-Pisangan via Pushkar, Nand, Picholia route by the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur by its order dated December 24, 1974. A revision filed by the petitioner, who is the existing operator of the aforesaid route, before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur was dismissed. In the present writ petition challenging the grant of the aforesaid temporary permit to the respondent No. 3, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Transport Authorities did not come to the conclusion that there was a particular temporary need within the meaning of Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act' and as such the grant of a temporary permit to the respondent No. 3 was invalid and void. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 on the other hand argued that a temporary need may co-exist with permanent need and placed reliance on the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in The Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Batragraph, Bhopal (M P.) v. B. P. Upadhyaya, AIR 1966 SC 156. Learned counsel for the petitioner however submitted that that may be so, but it is not necessary in each and every case where a vacancy existed that a temporary need also arose simultaneously. He placed reliance on Raipur Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd., Raipur v. Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur AIR 1967 Madh Pra 141 in support of his submission. Learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that in the application for the grant of a temporary permit the respondent No. 3 stated in column No. 4 that the temporary permit was desired for the purpose of 'to carry regular service', which could not be termed as a temporary need within the meaning of Section 62 of the Act. Reliance has been placed in support of this contention, upon the decision of this Court in Mohammed Yunus v. Regional Transport Authority (S.B. Civil Writ Petn. No. 1869 of 1970 decided on October 26, 1970 (Raj) and an unreported judgment of the Supreme Court in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. K. Venkataramireddy 1970 UJ (SC) 408.