- (1.) IN this CMP the petitioner has prayed that pending disposal of writ petition, the respondents be directed to re -register the auto rickshaw by him and issue a temporary contract carriage permit in his favour.
(2.) IN the Writ Petition of the petitioner which stands already admitted, it has been alleged that the vehicle was purchased by him in accordance with the letter of authority issued by the Regional Transport Authority (Annexure "A ) and produced the same before the Regional Transport Officer for re -registration within the stipulated period. The respondents have not re -registered the vehicle and nor issued the contract carriage permit in his favour resulting in stranding of his vehicle.
(3.) IN the counter the respondents have admitted to have issued the letter of authority as contained in Annexure "A" to the writ petition in favour of the petitioner. It has, however, been contended therein that the petitioner failed to produce the vehicle within the stipulated period. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The record has also been perused. The only controversy to the resolved in the writ petition is whether the petitioner produced the vehicle for re -registration within the stipulated period or not, so as to enable the respondents 2 and 3 to issue a route permit in his favour. Till this controversy comes up for adjudication in the main writ petition, it is to be seen in the present CMP whether the petitioner is entitled to any interim relief pending disposal of the said petition. In this regard, the court cannot loose sight of the fact that the vehicle was purchased by the petitioner in pursuance of the letter of authority issued by the Regional Transport Authority. Whether it was produced by him before the respondent 2 and 3 within the stipulated period fixed by them is the question which remains to be decided in the writ petition. According to the petitioner, the vehicle was produced by him before the said respondents within the stipulated period on 12 -6 -86 and his application for re -registration of the vehicle was received by them vide receipt No. 1751 dated 12 -6 -1986. The respondents have no doubt denied in the counter that the vehicle was produced by the petitioner within the stipulated period, but the validity of such denial is subject to judicial scrutiny and taken as a global truth. The court may have to see the record of for verification of the petitioners contention that his received by the respondents well within time on 12 -6 -1986. Not only that, the respondents have even taken another plea in the counter that the powers of the Member Secretary who had issued the letter of authority in favour of the petitioner were lateron withdrawn by the competent authority and for that reason also the vehicle of the petitioner could not be re -registered or route permit issued in his favour. This plea raised by the respondents requires a close scrutiny by the court in the writ petition and it is to be as to whether the petitioner should be allowed to suffer for the omissions and commisions of the respondents.;