A. P. Srivastava , J. - (1.) This special appeal has been filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Regional Transport Officer, Meerut, against an order of Mr. Justice Jagdish Sahai, dated the 8th September 1960, by which he allowed a petition filed by the respondent No. 1 under Article 226 of the Constitution and issued a writ of mandamus commanding the Secretary of the second appellant to consider the respondent's application for temporary permits without calling for a no-objection certificate and irrespective of the opinion of the A.G.M. of Roadways.
(2.) The facts leading to the petition can be briefly stated: The respondent No. 1 held permanent stage carriage permits for the Meerut-Qila-Parichatgarh-Asigabad route and also for the Meerut-Hapur-Buxar route. His stage carriages were also sometimes hired for marriage parties or religious or historical excursions. On such occasions if the route overlapped in part or whole a notified route the respondent No. 1 used to obtain temporary permits. On the 26th July 1960 the respondent submitted an application for the grant of a temporary permit for the purpose of Jain Yatra from Meerut to Sri Mahabirji between the 18th October 1960 and the 22nd October 1960. On receiving the application the Regional Transport Authority sent it to the A. G. M. Roadways, Meerut for stating if he had any objection. The application was returned with the endorsement that Roadways buses were available on the said dates and no temporary permits could be granted for the vehicles of the respondent. The application of the respondent was thereupon returned to him in the original with the endorsement that he should obtain a report from the Assistant General Manager, Roadways. As no-objection report could not be obtained by him, his application was not entertained. He then filed the writ petition claiming a writ of mandamus directing the Regional Transport Authority to consider his application for a temporary permit according to law. The petition was opposed on the ground that as a part of the route for which the temporary permit had been prayed for overlapped a notified route no temporary permit could be granted without a no-objection certificate from the Assistant General Manager of the Roadways.
(3.) The learned Judge who heard the petition was of opinion that the Regional Transport Authority exceeded its jurisdiction by acting on considerations quite foreign to the provisions of Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the application of the respondent No. 1 had not been considered by it according to law. He, therefore, allowed the petition and issued a writ of mandamus as prayed.;