SRIRAM Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition raises a short question about the powers of a Regional transport Authority to grant a temporary variation of an existing non-temporary permit so as to include a new area or route in such permit for a limited period pending an application for granting the variation on non-temporary basis The relevant facts are briefly these.

(2.) THERE is a route Reengus-Danta Ramgarh Via Rhatu and Bai in the Jaipur region. It is 31 miles in length and is said to be a 'c' class route. There are four operators on this route and petitioner Sriram is one of them. Respondents Nos. 2 to 9 held non-temporary permits for Sikar-Renwal via Palsana. Khatu Shamji and khachariawas route. This latter route is a mixed 'a' and 'c' class route, 53 miles in length, When the respondents applied for permits on Sikar-Renewal route some time before 1963 there was opposition from the operators of Reengus-Danta ramgarh route and this led to several proceedings but it is not necessary for the present purposes to refer to them. Suffice it to say that ultimately it was held that village Bai was included in the permits of the respondents. Thereafter the respondents applied for variation of the routes of their permits so as to include the route from Bai to Daulatpurs, Danta Ramgarh, Puniana and to Khachariawas. It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the application? made by the respondents for variation of their route they made applications on 8-11-67 purporting to be under Section 57 (8) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter to ho referred as the "act", for grant of a temporary variation of the permits by including the new route that they wanted to be added to their existing permits on non-temporary basis. By a circulation note the Regional Transport Authority considered these applications and on 2-12-67 the Regional Transport Authority resolved that pending final variation of the route covered by the respondents' permits as applied for the variation may be temporarily allowed for four months. It will be convenient to reproduce the order here-under:

(3.) IT is contended by the petitioner that a temporary variation of the non-temporary permits so as to include the new route as already applied for cannot be granted by the Regional Transport Authority as, according to the petitioner, the act does not make any provision for grant of such a temporary variation. In the second place, it was contended that even assuming that Section 62 of the Act was attracted the Regional Transport Authority was all the same incompetent to grant a temporary variation on the analogy of a temporary permit for the reason that proviso to Section 62 precluded the Regional Transport Authority from giving either a temporary permit or a temporary variation of the permit on account of the pendency of the applications for grant of variation of the permits on non-temporary basis.