ABDUL GAFOOR Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the Resolution dated October 5, 1991, passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Ajmer Region, Ajmer, by which the Regional Transport Authority, Ajmer, granted one temporary stage carriage permit in favour of the respondent No. 2 Kailash Chand on Mohanpur to Baneda via Mandalgarh, Triveni Chauraya, Bigod, Kotadi etc. route.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that three stay orders were passed by the High Court restraining the Regional Transport Authority, Ajmer Region, Ajmer, to grant or issue permit on Shahpura to Mandalgarh via Amli, Bisnia, Kotai, Bigod, Triveni Chauraya, Devisinghji Ka Khoda, Kanchrol, Hoda existing route or the portions thereof, but inspite of that, the Regional Transport Authority considered the application of the respondent No. 2 Kailash Chand and granted and issue one temporary stage carriage permit on Mohanpura to Baneda route via Mandalgarh, Triveni Chauraya, Bigod, Kotadi etc. The case of the respondent No. 2 Kailash Chand, on the other hand, is that the route, over which the non petitioner no was granted temporary stage carriage permit is different from the route over which the stay was granted. Secondly, it is contended that the petitioner has an alternative remedy available with him and he should, therefore, approach the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur, and file a revision petition against the order granting the permit the further case of the respondent No. 2 is that only a temporary permit has been granted by the Regional Transport Authority in favour of the non -petitioner No. 2 Kailash Chand and as Section 87(2), the Regional Transport Authority had the jurisdiction to grant a temporary permit inspite of the fact that the stay orders have been passed by this Court .

(3.) IT is not in dispute that in S.B. Civil Writ Petition.No.4501 /89 (Jagdish Chandra v. R.T.A. and Ors.), the stay order was passed by this Court on December 7, 1988, restraining the Regional Transport Authority from granting/issuing any permit either temporary or non -temporary on the route Shahpura to Mandalgarh via Amli, Bisania, Kotda, Bigod, Triveni Chauraya, Devisinghji ka Khnda, Kauchrot, Hoda existing route or portions thereof. On February 7, 1991, in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 615 of 1991 (Chhattar Mal v. Regional Transport Authority), this Court granted the stay restraining the Regional Transport Authority from granting or issuing any permit on Shahpura to Mandalgarh via Amli, Bisnia, Kotdi, Bigod, Triveni shauraya, Devisinghji Ka Khoda, Khanchrol, Hoda existing route or its portion. Again, on July 26, 1991, the Division Bench of this Court , in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3428 of 1991 (Ratan Lal Tambi v. Union of India and Ors.), while issuing notice on the stay application, allowed the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority to consider the applications for grant of the permit on various routes concerned in the writ petition, but before actually issuing the permit, permission of this Court should be obtained, It is not in dispute that the portion of this route, over which the respondent No. 2 Kailash Chand has been granted permit, is the portion of the route over which the stay was granted by the High Court restraining the Regional Transport Authority to grant or issue the temporary or non -temporary stage carriage permit on the route in question or the portion thereof and, therefore, the Regional Transport Authority has no jurisdiction to grant the permit to the respondent No. 2 Kailash Chand. It is not the case of the respondents that the stay order was not convey to them. When the Authority was already restrained by the High Court not to grant or issue the permit then if any action has been taken by the respondents in granting the permit, then the whole grants illegal and stands vitiated. It is further made clear that High Court, while granting the stay orders, restrained the Regional Transport Authority to grant temporary or non -temporary stage carriage permits and, therefore, the agreement that inspite of the fact that the stay orders were passed by the High Court the Regional Transport Authority was within the jurisdiction to grant temporary permit, is, also, devoid of any force as the Regional Transport Authority was restrained to grants temporary and non -temporary, both, types of permits.