Judgment

B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.:-Leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated December 16, 1993 dismissing C. W. P. No. 4488 of 1992. The matter arises under the Motor Vehicles Act.

3. The appellants applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Dehradun for grant of stage carriage permits on the route Muzaffarnagar to Yamuna Bridge via Rampur-Deoband-Sidki-Tapri-Saharanpur and Sarsawa (hereinafter referred to as the "said route"). While the said applications were pending before the Regional Transport Authority, some other persons challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by way of writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in this Court. Writ Petition (C) No. 869 of 1990 was one of them. The Petitioner in Writ Petition (C) No. 869 of 1990 was plying on the route Muzaffarnagar-Budhana-Khandola-Issopurteel. On February 2, 1991, this Court passed a common order in Writ Petition (C) Nos. 1110 of 1989, 869 of 1990, 740 of 1990 and 1100 of 1990 to the following effect:

"These writ petitions have been listed for final hearing. In one of the writ petitions Rule has already been issued. But the others are still at the admission stage.

List the main matter for hearing along with the other writ petitions as third item in the regular list.

Pending hearing and disposal of these writ petitions, we direct that the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority will be entitled to consider any further applications for permits on various routes concerned in these WPs and no permit will be actually issued within obtaining the orders of this Court."

4. By its proceedings dated February 11, 1991, the Regional Transport Authority sanctioned the grant of permits to the appellants on the said route. On February 13, 1991 permits were actually issued and the appellants say they started plying.

5. Certain parties affected by this Courts interim order dated February 7, 1991 applied for impleading themselves as respondents in Writ Petition (C) No. 869 of 1990 and for modification of the said interim order. On that application, this Court passed the following order by way of clarification of the earlier order. The order reads as follows:

"The applicants are allowed to be impleaded as parties in the writ petition. Cause title may be amended accordingly.

So far as the directions part of the applications are concerned we are informed that our order dated 7-2-91 is being construed as precluding the issue of permits even in cases where applications for permits have been filed and permits have been granted before 7-2-91. We wish to make it clear that our order dt. 7-2-91 was only intended to preclude the grant of fresh permits on or after 7-2-91. Our order should not be construed as precluding grant of permits in respect of other matters.

The main writ petition is listed for hearing on 2nd April, 1991."

6. On November, 22, 1991, the four writ petitions including Writ Petition (C) No. 869 of 1990 were dismissed by this Court.

7. Meanwhile, Sri Abad Hussain s/o Mohd. Zafar, third respondent in this appeal, filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court questioning the grant of permits by the Regional Transport Authority by its proceedings dated February 11, 1991. The High Court entertained the writ petition and passed an interim order to the following effect on February 25, 1991 : "Meanwhile the respondents shall not operate on the route in question in pursuance of the resolution dated February 11, 1991 until 25th March, 1991 unless recalled earlier". On March 26, 1991, the High Court made another order affirming the earlier order of February 25, 1991 and observing thus : "We are satisfied that the Regional Transport Authority, Dehradun while issuing permits to the respondents 2 to 28 did not show due respect to the orders of the SC passed Writ Petition (C) No. 740 of 1990 on 7th February, 1991. In these circumstan