- (1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 12th May. 1971, of the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Meerut, granting temporary permits to respond ents Nos. 3 to 12 of Muzaffarnagar-Budhana-Kurthal route. Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are existing operators on Muzaf farnagar-Budhana-Kandla route, which is completely overlapped by Muzaffar-nagar-Budhana-Kurthal route. Petitioner No. 3 claims to be an applicant for a permanent stage carriage permit on the route in question.
(2.) MUZAFFARNAGAR -Budhana-Kandla route is fifty kilometers in length. There are 35 stage carriages plying on this route. The town of Kurthal is situated at a distance of about eight kilometers from Budhana and, therefore, a stage carriage operating from Muzaffarnagar to Kurthal overlaps the entire route from the Muzaffarnagar-Budhana-Kandla route. The Regional Transport Authority by its resolution No. 53 dated April 5/6, 1971 decided to open Muzaffarnagar-Budhana Kurthal route and classified the same as 'A' class route. Under S. 47 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act the regional trans port authority fixed the strength of the route at 10. Although the strength was fixed and the route was classified, the Regional Transport Authority has not so far invited any applications for the grant of permits on the route in question. A number of applications were received by the R. T. A. for the grant of temporary permits on the route in question. The Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority in exercise of the delegated powers of the Regional Transport Autho rity granted ten temporary permits on the route in question. to respondents Nos. 3 to 12 to the petition. The peti tioners have challenged the validity of the grant of temporary permits to the respondents on a number of grounds. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that since applica tions for the grant of permanent permits on the route in question were pending, no temporary permit could legally be grant ed under Section 62 of the Act. The delegation of its power to its Secretary to grant temporary permit by the Regio nal Transport Authority is invalid and, in any case, the order granting temporary permits is not of the Secretary, but of the Chairman, who had no authority in law to grant any temporary permit.
(3.) SECTION 62 of the Motor Vehi cles Act confers power on the Regional Transport Authority to grant temporary permits. The first proviso to sub-sec. (1) of S. 62 places a restriction on the power of the Regional Transport Authority to grant temporary permits. According to this proviso the Regional Transport Authority in no case is authorised to grant temporary permits in respect of any route or area in respect of which applications for the grant of permanent stage carriage permits are pending under Section 46 of the Act. During the pen dency of such applications, no temporary permit can legally be granted. The question that falls for consideration in the present case is whether on the 5th April. 1971 when the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority granted temporary permits, was any application pending for the grant of permanent stage carriage permit on the route in question as contemplated by the first proviso to sub-section (1) of S. 62 of the Act.;