The main legal point established in the judgment is that temporary permits can only be granted in accordance with the provisions of Section 87 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and should be based on the public interest and emergent situations. The judgment provided specific directions for the grant of temporary permits, emphasizing adherence to the legal provisions and considerations of public interest.

As per Hon'ble Shri L,C. Bhadoo, J, :-

1. The petitioner, who is the holder of two regular stage carriage permits on the route Abikapur to Sankh via Batoli, Sitapur, Pathalgaon, Ludeg, Kansabail, Kunkuri, Jashpurnagar, Gohling & back, has preferred this writ petition being aggrieved by the grant of temporary stage carriage permit to respondent No.2 by respondent No.1-Regional Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh, Raipur on the route Ambikapur to Sankh for the month of June, 2005.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that respondent No.2 herein applied for grant of temporary stage carriage permit on the route Ambikapur to Sankh on the ground of heavy traffic on account of marriage season apart from Kabir Jayanti, Rana Pratap Jayanti & Rani Durgavati sacrifice day. The petitioner's challenge to the said grant of temporary permit is that the said temporary permit has been granted without formulation of the route by the State Government under Section 68(3)(ca) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1988') and the application for grant of temporary permit has been filed to S.T.A., Bilaspur, whereas no such authority is functioning. Respondent No.1 vide order dated 3-6-2005 granted temporary stage carriage permit to respondent No.2 for the period 56-2005 to 30-6-2005 and in the said temporary permit timing for departure from Ambikapur has been granted at 22-30 p.m., which is just 25 minutes after the regular service of the petitioner under Permit No.2118/B/05 and arrival time for Sankh has been granted at 4.00 p.m., which is just 35 minutes before the arrival time of the petitioner's service. Similarly, return timing of the petitioner is 6.00 am. Whereas return timing of respondent No.2 is 5.30 am, which is 30 minutes ahead of the petitioner's regular service, the major portion of the permit is common and grant of timings to temporary permit is not in the public interest.

3. Return has been filed on behalf of respondent No.1 in which it has been mentioned that it is incorrect to say that the temporary stage carriage permit has been granted to respondent No.2 without formulation of the route under Section 68(3)(ca), as the route from Ambikapur to Sankh has already been notified by the State Government on 14-6-2004 at Sr. No. 444 vide Annexure R1-1. It has further been mentioned that the temporary permit was granted looking to the need of general public of Bageecha & Narayanpur. It has also been mentioned that out of total 212 km route, 94 km route is common in both the permits i.e. regular & temporary permits and the temporary permit granted in favour of respondent No.2 is 32 km less than the route of petitioner's permit.

4. Return has also been filed on behalf of respondent No.2.

5. Even though the period for which the temporary stage carriage permit was granted to respondent No.2 has already expired, but counsel for the petitioner submitted that the R.T.O. is not authorized to grant temporary permit without formulation of the route, therefore, the petition was kept pending for decision on merit.

6. I have heard Shri B.K. Rawat, counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sandeep Dubey, Government Advocate for respondent No.1/State & Shri Ajay Shrivastava, counsel for respondent No.2.

7. Shri Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the temporary permits cannot be granted at the whims and fancy of the R.T.A. without following the procedure as envisaged under Section 87 of the Act of 1988. He further submitted that the temporary permits cannot be granted without formulation of the route. A temporary permit is being granted always by misinterpretation of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 87 of the Act of 1988.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is incorrect to say that respondent No.2 was granted temporary permit without formulation of the route. It is No.444. Counsel for the respondents further submitted that the said permit