S. P. Srivastava, J. - (1.) BEING aggrieved by an order passed by the Munsif Aonla, Bareilly dated 31-5-1993, where under on an application of the plaintiff respondent No. 3 moved in original suit No. 73 of 1993, an exparte order of temporary injunction had been granted prohibiting the defendant No. 2 from plying their buses on Aliganj Bisharat Ganj-Rampnra Mod, the petitioner approached this Court by means of the present writ petition seeking not only the quashing of the order dated 31-5-1993, passed by the learned Munsif but also the quashing of the proceedings of suit No. 73 of 1993 referred to hereinbefore.
(2.) THE facts in brief shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of this case lie in a narrow compass. THE petitioner, who is a member of the Dataganj Bareilly Private Bus Union, Bareilly, defendant No. 2 in the suit filed by General Mini Bus Owners Operating Association, the plaintiff respondent, held a permanent permit issued under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act for operating on the route Bareilly-Dataganj Via Diyochara-Billia. THE competent authority while exercising its jurisdiction envisaged under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, vide its order dated 20-5-1993 granted an extension of the aforesaid route where under the petitioner could ply vehicle on the extended portion of the route viz, Chandpur-Bisharatganj- Rampura Mod. It appears that the plaintiff respondent felt aggrieved by the aforesaid grant of extension of the route and therefore filed a suit being suit No. 73 of 1993 impleading therein the Regional Transport Officer, Bareilly as defendant No. 1 and Dataganj Private Bus Union, Bareilly which was impleaded as defendant No. 2, claiming a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from plying the buses on the extended portion of the route and further seeking to restrain the defendants from plying their vehicles on any portion of the route other than that which was covered under the permits issued prior to the extention and further not to extend the route. From the perusal of the true copy of the plaint, which has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, it is apparent that the plaintiff sought to challenge the order passed by the competent authority where under the extension of the route had been granted. The plaintiff has alleged that only Mini Buses could run properly on the extended portion of the route which was not at all suitable for running the big buses and authorising the plying of the big buses on the said portion could result in serious accidents. It was also asserted that the order of extension of the route was collusive. It was further alleged that in the circumstances of the case, plying of the vehicles on the basis of the order of extension on the extended portion of the route will cause inconvenience to the passengers and in the presence of the Mini Buses being run by the plaintiff's members there was absolutely no justification for the extension of the route. In the circumstances, it was alleged by the plaintiff that it will suffer irreparable loss as its members will be deprived of source of livelihood and the operators of the Mini Buses will suffer starvation. It may be noticed at this stage that the learned Munsif has not disclosed any reason which justified the grant of temporary injunction and has only observed that the injunction was being issued considering the necessity involved in the case and the fact that the court was to remain closed during the summer vacations.
(3.) WHILE granting temporary injunction, the learned Munsif had fixed 30th July, 1993 for objection and disposal of the injunction application. However, vide an order dated 28th June, 1993, passed by this Court, the operation of the impugned order had been stayed which order is still continuing to be operative. The parties in this case have exchanged the affidavits. Considering the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case in which the writ petition itself may be finally disposed of at this very stage under the second proviso to Rule 2 (1) of Chapter XXII of the Rules of the Court.;