- (1.) THIS is an application under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution by the Vijay transport Company arm two others and has been made under the following circumstances :
(2.) THE three petitioners are holders of stage carriage permits on the Taranagar --Sardarsahar route and their permits were renewed for a period of three years by an order of the Regional Transport Authority, Jpdhpur, dated 28-2-56. It appears that after some time opposite party No. 3, Laxmi Narain, applied for a temporary permit on this route on the allegation that the permit of petitioner No. 2, hussamkhan Ramgopal, had been lying idle and was not being utilised, with the result that there was scope for the running of one more bus on the route in question. Consequently, the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur. by its resolution No. 9, dated 28-3-57, granted a temporary permit for a period of 4 mouths to Laxmi Narain on the ground that there was temporary need to provide one more bus on the route, in question owing to the fact that the permit of one of the permit holders had not been availed of. Against this order the petitioners went in appeal to the Appellate Tribunal of the State Transport Authority, their contention being that Laxmi Narain had also applied for a permanent permit on the same route and that application was still pending with the Regional Transport authority and the latter without deciding that application for the grant of a permanent permit had unlawfully granted a temporary permit to Laxmi Narain. The petitioners also applied for a stay order. The stay matter appears to have come up for hearing before the Appellate Tribunal on 29-4-1957 in the presence of both the parties. The learned members of the Tribunal thought it fit to grant a stay order and restrained Laxmi Narain from plying his bus till the petitioners' appeal was finally decided. Thereupon, an application lor vacating the aforesaid stay order was made by Laxmi Narain to the Appellate Authority. This led to the order ot that authority dated 21-5-1957, whereby the same learned members who had formerly granted the stay order vacated it. We do not consider it necessary to question the reasons which persuaded the learned members to vacate the stay order which was granted by them before.
(3.) IT is against this order that the petitioners have come up to this court by means of the present writ application. It is, however, pertinent to point out that the petitioners have also prayed that the order passed by the Regional Transport authority granting the opposite party, Laxmi Narain, a temporary permit for a period of 4 months be vacated, as it was opposed to the provisions of the amended Section 62, Motor Vehicles Act.;