The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to determine the increase in the number of vehicles in the public interest before granting temporary permits, and the conditions and effectiveness of temporary permits in relation to the State Transport Undertaking's application.

( 1 ) THESE Appeals are by Abdul Basheer challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 4-2-1981 allowing writ petitions Nos. 23775 and 23776 of 1980 presented by T. Veeranna and B. Thippeswamy respectively The undisputed facts of the case may briefly be stated as follows :

( 2 ) THE State Transport Undertaking which is the Karnataka State road Transport Corporation, Bangalore, (hereinafter referred to as the corporation), prepared and published a draft scheme popularly known as Davangere Draft Scheme under S. 68-C of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, (hereinafter referred to as the Act), on the 9th of August 1973. Though the draft scheme has been published in august 1973, it is interesting to note that the same has not yet achieved finality in that the approved scheme has not been finalised and published as required by S. 68d (2) of the Act. On the 9th of May 1980, the appellant Abdul Basheer applied to the regional Transport Authority. Chitradurga, (hereinafter referred to as 'the RTA'), under S. 68f (1c) of the act for grant of a temporary permit for the route Davangere to Chitradurga and back, consisting of two round trips, proposing to operate the service as Non-Stop or Express service. The Corporation opposed the said application contending that there was no need. To the same effect were the objections of Veeranna and thippeswamy who are the existing operators on the route. The RTA after considering the objections and the material collected by it passed a resolution on 28th of October, 1980 granting a temporary permit in favour of Abdul Basheer on the route davangere to Chitradurga viz. Anagodu. Bharamasagar and Katral consisting of Express Non-Stop service of two round trips daily till the implementation of Davangere Draft scheme. The Secretary of the RTA was directed to fix suitable timings without affecting the existing Services. In pursuance of the said Resolution of the RTA, a temporary permit was in fact granted to the appellant on the 26th of December 1980 from which date it is said that he commenced operating the services.

( 3 ) VEERANNA and Thippeswamy, the existing operators on the route, challenged the Resolution of the RTA dated 28th of October, 1980 in W. P. Nos. 23775 and 23776 of 1980. We are informed that after Rule was issued, an ad-interim stay was granted on the 29th of December 1980 and consequently the appellant stopped his services from 2nd of January 1981. The learned Single Judge allowed both the Writ petitions, quashed the resolution of the RTA and remitted the case for fresh disposal to the rta. The learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that the RTA has not determined the number of additional permits to be granted on the route Davangere to Chitradurga before granting the permit to the appellant. The learned single Judge has also observed that opportunity was not afforded to the Corporation for applying for a temporary permit. The learned Single Judge has also held that the purpose for which temporary permit was asked for was only for meeting the temporary need whereas the permit granted is for a different purpose. It is the said order of the learned single Judge that is challenged in these two appeals.

( 4 ) AS we noticed that the Corporation has not been impleaded as a party in the two Writ Petitions and consequently in these appeals, we heard the learned counsel for all the parties and made an order on 13th of september, 1983 holding that the corporation was a necessary party and should have been impleaded in the writ petitions. On the oral applications made by the concerned parties, we permitted them to implead the Corporation as a party. The corporation has since entered appearance through its counsel Sri B. M. Chandrashekharaiah,

( 5 ) IT was contended on behalf of he appellant that the learned Single judge was not right in teking the view that after receipt of the appellant's application under S. 68-F (1c) of the Act, the RTA should have, in the first instance, determined as t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document