D.P.Gupta, J. - (1.) This is a writ petition in the matter of grant of temporary stage carriage permits on Ajmer-Sarwar via Srinagar, Ramsar, Debrela, Barada route (hereinafter referred to as 'the route') and it arises in the following circumstances:-- Lalchand, respondent No. 2, was granted a temporary permit on the route by the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur Region, Jaipur (hereinafter called 'the R. T. A.') on June 24, 1975 and a permit was actually issued to him in pursuance of the aforesaid grant on July 3, 1975. But probably he realised that the grant of the aforesaid temporary permit in his favour was not proper and so he surrendered the aforesaid temporary permit granted to him. On July 7, 1975 Lalchand submitted another application for grant of a temporary permit on the route, in which the purpose for which the permit was required was mentioned as 'under Section 62 (1) (c) of M. V. Act to meet particular temp, need'. An application for grant of a temporary permit on the route was also submitted on July 8, 1975 by respondent No. 3 Mongusingh Dalipsingh, who mentioned the purpose for which the temporary permit was required as 'to carry Regular Service'. It is not disputed by the parties that on July 7, 1975 the R. T. A. passed a resolution revising the existing scope of permits on the route from three to five permits and the number of return trips to be performed on the route daily was also increased from two to four return trips per day. The applications for grant of temporary permits submitted by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 on July 7, and 2, 1975, referred to above, came up for consideration before the R. T. A. on July 8, 1975 and the R. T. A. felt that on account of the increase in the scope of permits on the route there were two existing vacancies and that as no application for grant of non-temporary stage carriage permits on the route was pending for consideration before it and the grant of non-temporary permits were likely to take some time in the publication of notice etc. there was a particular temporary need along with a permanent need on the route. In view of this decision, the R. T. A. went on to consider the merits of the various applications for grant of temporary permits and found that the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were most suitable and granted them temporary permits on the route, one each, for a period of four months. This resolution of the R. T. A. is Ex. 3 on record. In pursuance of the aforesaid resolution, temporary permits were actually issued by the Secretary, R. T. A. to the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 on July 10, 1975, but in those permits, the purpose for which they were issued was mentioned as 'to ply regular service on Ajmer--Sarwar via Ramsar, Dabrela'.
(2.) The petitioner, who is an existing operator of the route, has filed the present writ petition challenging the grant of the aforesaid temporary permits to the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 by the R. T. A. and the contention of Mr. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the grant of temporary permits to the two respondents was without jurisdiction as neither a particular temporary need within the meaning of Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') has been mentioned in the applications of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 for the grant of temporary permits, nor the R. T. A. came to such a conclusion, nor any such particular temporary need has been specified in the temporary permits issued to the said respondents by the Secretary, R. T. A., Jaipur. On the other hand, Mr. R. R. Vyas appearing for the respondent No. 2, submitted that the respondent No. 2 filed an application (Annexure R/2/1) on July 7, 1975 before the R. T. A. along with the application form for grant of a temporary permit, wherein he clearly referred to the shortage of vehicles on the route for the services allowed and the need of maintaining the necessary services on the route, which constituted a particular temporary need within the meaning of Section 62 (1) (c) of the Act and on that basis the grant of a temporary permit to the respondent No, 2 was justified. The contention of the learned counsel is that a particular temporary need coexisted along with a permanent need and the grant of temporary permit to the respondent No. 2 by the R. T. A., in these circumstances, could not be held to be unjustified. Mr. Mehta, appearing for respondent No. 3, however, submitted that although the application of the said respondent did not disclose any particular temporary need, yet as the resolution of the R. T. A. granting temporary permits to the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 gave valid reasons for the grant of temporary permits, it was not necessary for the Court to interfere with the grant of the aforesaid temporary permits to the respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Learned counsel for both the respondents also submitted that there was no question of lack of jurisdiction involved in the present case and the petitioner should have availed of an alternative remedy by filing a revision petition before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal and that the present writ petition should be dismissed on the sole ground that the aforesaid alternative remedy has not been availed of by the petitioner.
(3.) In respect of the aforesaid preliminary objection, Mr. Vyas referred to two decisions of this Court, namely Girdhari v. Regional Transport Authority 1970 Raj LW 465 and Smt. Shakuntala Devi v. Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur 1970 Raj LW 515 = (AIR 1971 Raj 226). In the case of Girdhari it was laid down by a Division Bench of this Court that the remedy by way of revision under Section 64-A of the Act was a specific legal remedy and the said remedy was fully efficacious. Mr. Maheshwari however, drew my attention to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. K. Venkataramreddy (1970) 2 UJ (SC) 408, wherein their Lordships have been pleased to observe:-- "There can be no manner of doubt that in the absence of any purpose or reason for which temporary permits were asked for the Regional Transport Authority should have dismissed the application in limine because a temporary permit can be granted only if the permit is required for the purpose or reasons mentioned from (a) to (d) in Section 62 of the Act. In spite of every effort on the part of the learned counsel for the appellant to look for any document which would fulfil the requirement of a valid application under Section 62 nothing could be shown to us which could indicate the purpose for which the appellant asked for the grant of a temporary permit." So far as the application of respondent No. 3 Mangusingh Dalipsingh is concerned, there can be no doubt that the said application disclosed no purpose, nor indicated any reason for the grant of a temporary permit, within the meaning of Section 62 of the Act. Under Section 62 of the Act, a temporary permit could be granted for the following purposes:-- (a) for the conveyance of passengers on special occasions such as to and from fairs and religious gatherings, or (b) for the purposes of a seasonal business, or (c) to meet a particular temporary need, or (d) pending decision on an application for the renewal of a permit. The purpose for which the permit was desired, as disclosed in the application of the respondent No. 3, which I have already referred to above, was to carry a regular service and it has not been argued before me that the purpose so disclosed was a purpose or reason sufficient for the grant of a temporary permit under Section 62 of the Act. It cannot, therefore, be disputed that there was no valid application under Section 62 of the Act, so far as respondent No. 3 is concerned and as the R. T. A. proceeded to grant a temporary permit to the said respondent on the basis of the application which was not valid application at all within the meaning of Section 62 of the Act, it had certainly acted without jurisdiction. The grant of a temporary permit to respondent No. 3 on the basis of such an application, must be held to be without jurisdiction. It cannot, therefore, be said that the writ petition is not maintainable on account of the availability of an alternative remedy. The temporary permits granted to the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are for a short period of four months and such permits are valid only upto November 9, 1975 and in the peculiar circumstances of this case, it would be proper to decide the case on merits as well rather than leave the parties to pursue the ordinary remedy by way of revision, which no doubt should have been normally availed of. Moreover, the existence of an alternative remedy is not a bar to the jurisdiction of this Court and in view of the fact that the matter has been heard fully on merits as well, it would now be proper for this Court, in the circumstances of this case, to decide the same on merits.;