M.L.JOSHI, J. - (1.) THIS matter comes up for the disposal of the stay application. However, as the point involved it the Stay matter and the main petition befog the same it was taken for final disposal at the request of the parties.
(2.) THE Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation hereinafter called the R.S.R.T.C. applied for temporary permits under Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter called the Act. An objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner to the grant of permits but despite the objection the permits were granted to the Corporation by its resolution dated 22nd of September, 1976. The petitioner has challenged this resolution by way of ac application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The case of the petitioner as set out in the application Is that the petitioner was never heard on his objections and the same were decided by circulation without giving him reasonable opportunity of being beard; that the application under Section 62 of the Act does not contain any particulars of temporary need which is essential to constitute a valid application under Section 62 of the Act; and that the portion of the route on which permit is granted is a notified route and, therefore, permit cannot be granted on such route.
(3.) THE R.S.R.T.C. has opposed the petition. Mr. Maheshwari has pressed before me the following contentions: (1) That no case has been made out under Section 62 of the Act as neither the application discloses any particulars nor there is a specific finding as to the temporary need. (2) That the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity of being beard on his objections and, therefore, order granting temporary permit is bad in law. (3) That the permit could not have been given on the route as the portion of the route in question is a notified one.;