D.K.SETH, J. - (1.) In the present case it is alleged that the petitioners were granted permits in the route Saharanpur-Shamli pursuant to the resolution dated 16-8-1997. The petitioners who are holding those permits (13 in number) allege that the said route was notified in favour of U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, being the State Transport Undertaking (hereinafter referred to as UPSRTC and S.T.U. respectively). Therefore the temporary permits were issued within the scope and ambit of Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). By an order dated 21-11-1997 all those permits were cancelled. A copy of the said order is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. In the said order, it was pointed out that the permits (13 in number) which were granted in terms of Section 104of the Act were being cancelled on the ground that UPSRTC had obtained thirty permits on the said route for 120 single trips since the permits were granted subject to the conditions that it would continue till the permits are obtained by the State Transport Undertaking. Against the said order the petitioners have preferred Revision No. 1/1998 and 5 of 1998 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal U. P. Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as S.T.A.T.), in which the order dated 21-11-1997 has been stayed. Now the petitioners by means of this writ petition, in this background, has prayed for following reliefs : "(a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to strictly comply with the directions of the Appellate Tribunal dated 7-1-1998 and 19-1-1998.(b) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Passenger Tax Officer, Saharanpur to accept the Passenger tax in respect of the Vehicles of the petitioners for operating on the route.(c) to issue any such other and further suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.(d) and to award costs of the petition in favour of the petitioners."
(2.) We have heard Sri C. P. Ghildyal, learned counsel for the petitioners at some length. It appears, that the writ petition has been moved on behalf of 12 persons holding 13 permits, whereas Revision No. 1 of 1998 was filed by one Sri Vedpal Singh, the petitioner No. 1 and the Revision No. 5 of 1998 was filed by one Sri Subhash Sharma and Smt. Shashi Lata Sharma. Sri Subhash Sharma is not a party to the writ petition. Smt. Shashi Lata Sharma is petitioner No. 12, in this writ petition. Copies of the permits are neither annexed with the writ petition nor were produced in the Court, though inquired by the Court from Sri Ghildyal.
(3.) A perusal of the order, contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition, indicates that within the scope and ambit of Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act the said temporary permits which contained conditions to the effect that it would cease as soon as permit is obtained by the S.T.U. Originally, 58 temporary permits, were granted on 16-8-1997. The said permits had expired on 30-9-1997. Thereafter only 13 permits have been issued, out of the said 58 temporary permits. The route concerned is part of the notified route, wherein 120 single were permitted. (This fact is not disputed by Sri Ghildyal and is also so admitted in the writ petition itself). The S.T.U. having obtained 30 permits for 120 single trips on the concerned route Saharanpur-Shamli, being part of the notified route Saharanpur-Delhi had requested cessation of temporary permits. In the circumstances the said 13 temporary permits were cancelled.;