D.P. Gupta, J. - (1.) The case was fixed for orders on stay application today, but on the request of the learned Counsel for the patties the main writ petition was taken up for hearing. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) A temporary permit was granted to the respondent No. 3 on Ajmet Pisengan via Pusokar, Nand, Picholia route by the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur by its order dated 24 -12 -1974 A revision filed by the petitioner, who is the existing operator of the aforesaid route, before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur was dismissed. In the present writ petition challenging the grant of the aforesaid, temporary permit to the respondent No. 3, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Transport Authorities did not coma to the conclusion that there was a particular temporary need within the meaning of Sec. 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act thereinafter referred to as 'The Act') & as such the grant of a temporary permit to the respondent No. 3 on the other hand argued that the temporary need may co -exist with a permanent need and placed reliance on the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in. The Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Bairagarh Bhopal M.P. v/s. : [1965]3SCR786 . Learned Counsel for the petitioner however submitted that may be so, but it is not necessary in each and every case where a vacancy existed that a temporary need also arose simultaneously. He placed relience on Raipur Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. Raipur v/s. : AIR1967MP141 in support of his submission. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that in, the application for the grant of a temporary permit the respondent No. 3 stated in column No. 4 that the temporary permit was desired for the purpose of 'to carry regular service', which could not be termed as a temporary need, within the meaning of Sec. 62 of the Act Reliance has been placed in support of this contention, upon the decision of this Court in Mohammed Yunus v/s. Regional Transport Authority and Ors. S.S. Civil Writ Petition No. 1869 of 1970 decided on October 26, 1970 and an unreported judgment of the Supreme Court in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v/s. K. Venkataramirddy and Ors., 1970 UJ (SC) 408.
(3.) I have considered the rival contention. From a perusal of the Regional Transport Authority it clearly emerges that the only reason assigned by it for the grant of a temporary permit to the Respondent No. 3 was that there was vacancy of one permit on the route. From the mere fact a vacancy existed on the route, the Regional Transport Authority arrived at the conclusion that along with the permanent need there was also a temporary need, which was required to be filled in by the grant of a temporary permit. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal also expressed, the same opinion and observed that a temporary need could be presumed to exist in the circumstances of the case. It was necessary before a temporary permit could have been granted that the Regional Transport Authority could have come to a firm conclusion that a temporary need also simultaneously exists on a route, although there is no doubt that a temporary need, may also coexist along with a permanent need provided the circumstances lead to that conclusion as held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in The Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Bairagarh, Bhopal case : [1965]3SCR786 . It is difficult to conceive that a temporary permit may be granted only for the purpose of enabling a vehicle to ply in rotation with (sic) vehicle already plying on on a non temporary permit on the route. In the application for the grant of a temporary permit the respondent No. 3 mentioned that the temporary permit was desired by her 'to carry regular service', which does not come within any of the clauses of Sec. 62(1) on, the Act and does not constitute a temporary need at all.;