- (1.) BY means of the Present Petition under Article 226 of the Consti tution of India, orders passed by the State Transport (Appellate) Tribunal granting temporary permits to Mrs. B. O. Hearn and Shri Mahabir Prasad Sri-vastava, opposite parties 2 and 3 have been challenged.
(2.) IN order to appreciate the controversy between the parties, a brief narration of facts is necessary. Delhi Garh Mukteshwar route is an Inter Sta-tal route. In 1959 there existed 15 va cancies on that route which were re quired to be filled up by the Transport authorities of Uttar Pradesh. The Re gional Transport Authority. Meerut in vited applications for grant of stage car riage permits on the said route. The petitioner No. 1 and several others in cluding Shri B. O. Hearn, husband of opposite party No. 2, made applications for the grant of stage carriage permits on the said route. Before these applica tions could be considered on merits, 13 permits were issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut to displac ed operators under Section 680 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Thus only two vacancies remained to be filled up. Applications for renewal of permits of the existing operators came up for consideration be fore the Regional Transport Authority In 1963. Shri B. O. Hearn and Shri Mahabir Prasad, opposite party No. 3, opposed the renewal of applications and pressed their claim for grant of permits to them. The renewal applications were, ' however, allowed and Mahabir Prasad and B. O. Hearn were not granted any permit Each of them filed appeals against the order of the Regional Transport Autho rity, Meerut. The appeals were allow ed by the State Transport (Appellate) Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Tribunal) and further granted two stage carriage permits - one to Shri B. O. Hearn and another to opposite party No. 3, Shri Mahabir Prasad. These permits were granted against the two vacancies without considering the appli cations which were pending considera tion for the two vacancies. Mahammad Yasin, one of the affected applicants, filed a Writ Petition and challenged the validity of the order of the Appellate Tribunal. Meanwhile, the pending ap plications were considered by the Regio nal Transport Authority and rejected on the ground that since the two vacan cies had already been filled up by the Appellate Tribunal, there remained no vacancy. By means of Writ Petition No. 5245 of 1964 (All), the petitioner No. 1 challenged the aforesaid orders of the Appellate Tribunal, as well as that of the Regional Transport Authority reject ing their applications. On 17-5-1968, a learned Single Judge of this court allowed Writ Peti tion No. 5245 of 1964 (All), filed by peti tioner No. 1 and quashed the order of the Appellate Tribunal, granting perman ent stage carriage permits to B. O. Hearn and Mahabir Prasad. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was upheld in appeal also and the matter was remand ed to the Appellate Tribunal for consi dering the case afresh. In pursuance of the order of remand, the Appellate Tri bunal considered the matter and by its order dated 3-5-1969, it remanded the case to the Regional Transport Autho rity for considering all the applications afresh. Mrs. B. O. Hearn who had succeeded to her husband on his death, filed Writ Petition No. 250 of ,1970 be fore the Lucknow Bench of this Court challenging the aforesaid order of the Appellate Tribunal, remanding the case to the Regional Transport Authority for considering all the applications on merits. That Writ Petition was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court and order of the Appellate Tribunal, remanding the case to the Regional Transport Authority, was quashed. The Bench directed the Appellate Tribunal to de ide the case in accordance with law. Since then the matter has been pending before the Appellate Tribunal and during the pendency of the two appeals of opposite parties Nps. 2 and 3 before the Appellate Tribunal temporary permits were granted by the Appellate Tribunal on 1-7-1971 to each of the two contesting respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Validity of these two permits Is under challenge in the present petition.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that Appellate Tri bunal has no power or jurisdiction to grant any temporary permit during the pendency of appeal against an order of the Regional Transport Authority reject ing the appellants' applications for grant of stage carriage permits to them.;