DAVE, C. J - (1.) ON 13th August, 1963. The petitiONers submitted applicatiONs for renewal of their permits ON 29th May, 1963. Those applicatiONs were, however, not sent by R. T. A. for publicatiON with the result that the entire period of their permits expired without any decisiON about renewal of their permits. The petitiONers, therefore, applied for issue of temporary permits during the pendency of their applicatiONs for renewal of their nON-temporary permits. They were granted temporary permits for a period of two mONths from 13th August, 1963 to 13th October, 1963. Their applicatiON, for nON-temporary permits still remained undisposed of and, therefore, they presented fresh applicatiONs for temporary permits. The RegiONal Transport Authority again granted temporary permits to them from 14th October, 1963 to 13th December, 1963. It appears that the attentiON of the RegiONal Transport Authority was drawn by Messrs Jai Bharat Bus Service and it was pointed out that the secONd temporary permits granted to the petitiONers were against the provisiONs of sec. 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). ThereupON the Secretary, RegiONal Transport Authority, Jodhpur, by his letter dated 21st October, 1963, informed the petitiONers that the temporary permits granted to them ON 10th October, 1963 were invalid and they were directed not to ply their buses ON the said route. The petitiONers filed appeals against the said order before the Transport Appellate Tribunal and also requested it to grant stay order,but the Tribunal refused to allow the stay applicatiON. The petitiONer, therefore, presented the present writ applicatiON in this court.
(2.) IT is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the temporary permits issued to his clients on 10th October, 1963, were valid and the petitioners ought not to have been restrained from plying their buses. IT is next urged that the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority should not have passed the order restraining them plying their buses without giving them a notice and a chance of hearing. IT is contended that the said order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural Justice. IT is, therefore, prayed that the said order should be quashed and the respondents should be directed to allow the petitioners to ply their buses under the temporary permits till 13th December, 1963, The petitioners have presented a second application with an alternative prayer to the effect that in case the first prayer cannot be allowed, the Regional Transport Authority should be directed by a writ of mandamus to publish and dispose of their applications for renewal of the non-temporary permits expeditiously. No reply in writing has been filed on behalf of the respondents, but the writ application is contested by the learned Government Advocate on their behalf. It is urged by him that, according to the second proviso to cl. (d) of sec. 62 of the Act, temporary permits could be granted to the petitioners only once, that their second application for temporary permits during the pendency of their applications for renewal of non-temporary permits was misconceived, that the Regional Transport Authority has no jurisdiction to grant temporary permits for the second time and, therefore, when this fact was brought to its notice, it proceeded rightly in directing the petitioners not to ply their buses on those permits. It is further submitted that even though the Regional Transport Authority did not give notice to the petitioners before restraining them from plying their buses, it did not commit any error and therefore, the petitioners were not adversely affected. Under the circumstances, the argument about the violation of the principles of natural justice does not arise. Lastly, it is pointed out that although the Regional Transport Authority was not prompt in publishing the petitioners' applications soon after they were presented in May, 1963, they have now been published in the Rajasthan Gazette of the 7th November, 1963 and that they would be disposed of soon after the prescribed period of thirty days is over. The learned Government Advocate gives an undertaking on behalf of the non-petitioners that they would dispose of the petitioners' application soon after the 7th December, 1963 and, at any rate, within one month from 7th December, 1963. We have given due consideration to the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners. As pointed out above, his first contention is that the second temporary permit could be validly granted in favour of the petitioners upto 13th December 1963. According to learned counsel, the maximum period prescribed under sec. 62 read with cl. (d) proviso second (of the Act) is four months and that their second application was not incompetent. It would suffice to observe in this connection that this question came for consideration in Janta Transport Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur (1 ). One of us was a party to the judgment given in that case and while dealing with this question, was observed as follows : - "the second proviso read with clause (d) to which alone it relates means that the Regional Transport Authority should ordinarily decide the application for renewals of permits before the expiry of the period of the said permits, and if, for any reason, such applications cannot be decided by that time then it may grant temporary permits pending the decision of the applications but the temporary permit should under no circumstances be given more than once. In other words it is left to the discretion of the R. T. A. to grant the permit for the maximum period of four months, but if it grants the permit for a shorter period say for a month or two it cannot thereafter grant another temporary permit by saying that it had authority to grant the permit for four months. " It is obvious that the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is met squarely by the said observation and we see no reason to depart from the view expressed therein. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioners' second application for grant of temporary permits during the pendency of their application for renewal of non-temporary permits was incompetent, and the permits issued on the basis of those applications were illegal. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, committed no error in asking the petitioners to refrain from plying their buses on the basis of those permits. There is thus no force in the petitioners' first contention. Now coming to the next objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner it is true that the Secretary Regional Transport Authority, did not give an opportunity to the petitioners to show cause before restraining them from plying their buses, but since he did not pass any erroneous order the petitioners cannot make a valid grievance on the basis that the principles of natural justice were violated. The Regional Transport Authority could not come to a different conclusion even if a hearing were given to the petitioners. Thus the second objection is also not tenable. It is very unfortunate that the Regional Transport Authority did not proceed promptly and send the petitioners applications for publication in time even though they were presented on 29. 5. 1963 i. e. long before the date when their non-temporary permits were to expire on 13th August, 1963. It should have been appreciated that delay on its part would mean substantial loss to the petitioners. It is regrettable that even after the temporary permits were issued in favour of the petitioners, their applications were not sent for publication. At any rate, it does appear now from the Rajasthan Gazette of the 7th November, 1963 that the petitioners' applications have been published therein. In view of the fact that the learned Government Advocate has given an undertaking on behalf of the non-petitioners that the petitioners' applications would be decided expeditiously soon after the 7th December, 1963, we do not consider it proper to issue a writ of mandamus. With these observations, the writ application is dismissed. No order as to costs. .;