Judgment

VENKATARAMIAH, J.:- On the expiry of the period of a permit to run a stage carriage on the route Jashpurnag r Ambikapur issued under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in favour of the Janta Transport Co-operative Society, the petitioner and some others filed applications for the grant of the said permit before the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur. The Janta Transport Co-operative Society also made an application for the renewal of the permit in its favour. The application for renewal filed by the Janta Transport Co-operative Society was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority on the ground that it was barred by time. On a consideration of the relative merits of the other applicants, namely, the petitioner and others, the Regional Transport Authority granted the permit in favour of the petitioner. The said order was challenged in appeal by M/s. Ali Ahmed & Sons - respondent No. 3, which was also an applicant for the said permit before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The other unsuccessful applicants also filed separate appeals questioning the grant in favour of the petitioner. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal heard all the appeals together. The Tribunal by its order D/-19-9-1985 set aside the order granting the permit in favour of the petitioner on two grounds, namely, that Mohd. Jhahid Khan, the proprietor of the petitioner concern was a practising advocate and that he had ceased to carry on the transport business in his individual capacity and granted the permit in favour of M/s. Ali Ahmed & Sons. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal the petitioner filed a writ petition in M.P. No. 2945 of 1985 on the file of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur under Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution. That petition was taken up for hearing on 4-10-1985 by the High Court. On that day the High Court passed the following order:-

"Shri Y.S. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition. He is permitted to do so. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn."

2. Later on the petitioner again filed another writ petition before the High Court in M.P. 188 of 1986. That petition came up for hearing on 17-1-1986. At the conclusion of the hearing the High Court passed the following order:

"Shri P.R. Bhave for the petitioner heard on admission.

This writ petition is directed against the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal setting aside the grant in favour of the petitioner, and instead giving the permit to the respondent No. 3. The petitioner earlier filed writ petition No. M.P. No. 2945/85 against the impugned order which was withdrawn on 4-10-1985. No second writ petiton lies against the same order. The earlier petition was not withdrawn with permission to file a fresh petition. Besides, we do not find any merit in this petition. The Appellate Tribunal has granted the permit to the respondent No. 3 as he has been found superior to the petitioner. Besides, he being a practising lawyer could not be doing the transport business. Similar petition of other operators has already been dismissed by this Court.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed summarily."

3. Aggrieved by the above order rejecting the writ petition at the stage of admission, the petitioner has filed the above special leave petition requesting the Court to grant the special leave to prefer an appeal against the order of the High Court.

4. The main contention urged before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the High Court was in error in rejecting the writ petition out of which this case arises, on the ground that the petitioner had withdrawn the earlier writ petition in which he had questioned the order passed by the Tribunal on 4-10-1985 without the permission of the High Court to file a fresh petition. It is urged by the learned counsel that since the High Court had not decided the earlier petition on merits but only had permitted the petitioner