- (1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the timing conference convened by the 2nd respondent. That conference was convened pursuant to the direction given by this Court in a writ petition filed by the 1st respondent to implement the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal which has granted variation of the permit held by the 1st respondent.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the Tribunal having been made under the provisions of the repealed enactment, the 1st respondent is bound to obtain counter-signature of the Regional Transport Authority of the other District arid on account of variation, the route has now become an inter-district route. Counsel, however, fairly pointed out that a learned single Judge of this Court has held in W.P. 18668 of 1992 that the provisions of the old Act are not applicable and that the permit will be governed by the provisions of the new Act after the new Act came into force. It was, however, submitted that the petitioner has filed a Writ Appeal against that judgment and therefore, this Court should not follow the judgment the correctness of which is pending adjudication in the Writ Appeal.
(3.) I have examined the matter independently of that judgment and I concur with the view expressed therein. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has repealed the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Sub-section(2) of Section 217 of the Act provides for saving of certain portions and continued applicability of the provisions of the repealed Act and the rules made thereunder in respect of certain matters. Section 217(2)(b) provides that a certificate of fitness or registration or Licence or permit issued or granted under the repealed enactments shall continue to have effect after such commencement under the same conditions and for the same period as if this Act of 1988 had not been passed.;