M.L.JAIN, J. - (1.) THE facts of this writ petition are that out of the scope of two not temporary stage carriage permits on the Hanumangarh Town Hanumangarh Junction City Bus Service route (hereinafter called the petitioner's route) the petitioner holds one such permit valid upto 24th March, 1978. One other permit already granted is also in existence. On dated 12 10 -1976, the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner, howeser, increased the scope from two to four and on 1 -11 -1976 granted temporary permits in favour of non -petitioner Bhupendrasingh and one Banwarilal. Upon revisions, the State Transport Appellate Tribunal quashed the increase in the scope and the grant of temporary permits by its order on 4 -12 -76. However, the RTA persisted and on 14 -12 -76 increased the scope to six stage carriage permits against which one of the existing operator. M/s Mahalaxmi Transport Company preferred a revision, which is still pending with the STAT and yet the R.T.A. invited applications for the grant of non -temporary permits. 39 applications were received and all of them were published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra on 28 -4 -77. While such applications were pending consideration, some four applications for grant of temporary permits were filed in the last week of December, 1976 in the office of the RTA. On 28 12 -76, the RTA directed that the applications for temporary permits be put up in the next meeting. The petitioner, who is an existing operator sent a telegram to the Chairman of the R.T.A. on 29 -12 -76 that 'no temporary permit could be granted pending the applications for the grant of non -temporary permits. However, the RTA ignored the telegram and the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act Section 62, Sub -Section (1), Proviso one, that a temporary permit shall, in no case, be gat anted in respect of any route or area specified in an application for the grant of a new permit under Section 46 or Section 54 during the tendency of the applications, and its Secretary prepared a note on 23 -2 -77 calling a circulation note and sent it to Jaipur to the R.T.A. who by its order dated 25 -2 -77 granted three temporary permits over the petitioner's route. Being aggrieved by the grant of the said three temporary permits, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the STAT under Section 64(1)(f) of the said Act challenging the grant of the said permits on the ground that pending consideration of the applications for non -temporary permits, no temporary permit could be granted and also on the ground that the purpose mentioned in the application did not disclose any particular need as required by Section 62(1)(c) of the said Act. He had also applied for stay and an ad interim stay was granted on 5 -4 -77, only one person Bhapendra singh was operating the route as the other two had not availed of their permits. The said stay order was confirmed on 14 -4 -77.
(2.) HOWEVER , on 12 -5 -77, the STAT dismissed the appeal upon the preliminary objection that the appeal was not maintainable under Section 64(1)(f). This petition is directed against the aforesaid order of the STAT dated 12 -5 -77 and also against the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner dated 25 -2 -77 by which it granted the aforesaid temporary permits. No reply has been filed by the opposite party and therefore, arguments were heard on the petition. The position of law as stated in Section 62 is clear and admits of no doubt that when an application for a non -temporary permit is pending, no temporary permit can be granted for the same route. But the R.T.A. ignored this provision inspite of the fact that its attention was drawn by the petitioner by his aforesaid telegram and in its order stated that there was a scope of 6 permits and four vacancies existed and it was in the public interest to issue temporary permits while applications for non -temporary permits were pending consideration. Under Section 64(1)(f), a person who is providing existing facility for transport and has opposed the application for grant of a permit, can file an appeal against the grant of permit. The learned STAT was of the view that the telegram could not be considered an opposition within the meaning of the said Section 64(1)(f). The learned Tribunal gave the following reasons for its view: 1. The petitioner was aware of the applications made by the non -petitioner and yet he contended himself with simply sending the aforesaid telegram instead of filing objections. 2. Though there is no ground to doubt the genuineness of the telegram, yet the telegram being a sort of a general suggestion, cannot be considered to be an opposition made against any particular applicant, 3. Though the petitioner was even entitled to make an oral opposition and where the petitioner was not aware of the applications he was not even bound to make an opposition in the meeting of the RTA, but the petitioner has not said that he was not aware of the applications.
(3.) THE learned Tribunal appears to have felt that if the appeal was not maintainable, it could be treated as a revision but it did not do so because as stated by it the learned Counsel expressed the view that his appeal may not be treated as such. But the petitioner has alleged in his petition that his counsel had submitted before the learned Tribunal that in case it did not entertain the appeal, it could be dealt with as a revision. This averment stands unchallenged.;