( 1 ) THIS is a petition for issue of a writ and to quash the notification dt. 12. 2. 82 calling for application for the grant of temporary permit under sec. 68-F (1-C) of the Motor Vehicles Act or the route Srikakulam to Rajam via chilakapalem junction and Ponduru. It is stated by the petitioner that the Regional transport Authority, Srikakulam by resolution dt. 17. 7. 81 approved a proposal to open a short route from Srikakulam to rajam via Chilakapalem junction and ponduru tor one bus. As the proposed route overlaps the route Srikakulam to icherla, which is covered by a draft scheme for a distance of 8 k. ms. and in view of the prohibition u/s 68-F (1-C) of the act prohibiting the grant of pucca permit, the notification dt. 20-8-81 was issued calling for applications for the grant of temporary permit, on the proposed route, as the A. P. State Road Transport corporation did not make any application for the grant of a temporary permit. Pursuant to the rotification, the petitioner made an application for the grant of temporary permit. A temporary permit was granted in favour of the petitioner for a period of four months from 81. 10. 81 to 20. 2. 82. Since the grant of temporary permit, the petitioner has been plying on the route. The temporary permit issued in favour of the petitioner is effective till the A. P. State Road Transport corporation places its vehicle after the approval of the draft scheme in accordance with sec. 68-F (1-C) of the Act. The 1st respondent erroneously fixed four months period while issuing the permit. The 1st respondent issued a notification dt. 12. 2. 82 calling for applications for the grant of further temporary permit for a period of four months or till the. corporation obtains a permit, whichever is earlier. This issuance of the said notification is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

( 2 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, it is stated that subsequent to the proposal to open the new route Srikakulam to Rajam, for the issue of a temporary permit, the A. P. State Road Transport corporation was called upon to apply for temporary permit on the said route, but they did not apply for a temporary permit. Thereupon, applications have been invited for the grant of a temporary permit and the petitioner applied for temporary permit in respect of his bus aps 229 on the new route for a period of four months only from the date of issue and the temporary permit was issued for a period of four months from 21. 10. 81 to 20. 2. 82. The applications have been invited for the grant of temporary permit from the date on which the previous temporary permit expires and aggrieved by this notification, this writ petition is filed. The temporary permit valid for four months only was granted, as the petitioner himself applied for a temporary permit for four months only. The notification is issued inviting applications for grant of temporary permit, as the time regarding the previous permit expired.

( 3 ) THE 2nd respondent in the counter-affidavit stated that the maximum period for the grant oi a temporary permit is till the Corporation obtains a pucca permit and the temporary permit issued to the petitioner is for a period of months only.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of Sec. 68-F (1-C) of the Motor Vehicles Act. issuance of a temporary permit shares till the issue of a permit to the State transport undertaking and as such the impugned notification calling lor applications for the grant of temporary permit is illegal. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that the duration of temporary permit is for a period of four months only as provided under sec. 62 of the Act and temporary permit not exceeding four months at the time is permissible till the issue of a permit to the A. P. State road Transport Corporation and as such the notification after the expiry of four months is sustainable.

( 5 ) SEC. 62 of the Act rel

Click Here to Read the rest of this document