ORDER :- In this writ petition filed by Ashok Auto Service of Betim the prayer made is for quashing the order dated 14-7-1967 by which the respondent no. 3, the Secretary of the State Transport Authority, issued four temporary permits in favour of respondent no. 4, M/s Maharashtra Goa Highway Operators, for plying buses on Betim-Bombay route.

2. The facts of the case are not in dispute and they fall within a short compass. On 11-7-1966 the petitioner addressed an application to the Director, Regional Transport Office, Bombay, for a permit for operating buses on Betim-Bombay route and return. A copy of this application was sent to the Director, Regional Transport Office, Panjim, with the covering letter of the same date in which the Director was requested to forward to the Director at Bombay the copy of the aforementioned letter with favourable comments. The Director at Panjim informed the petitioner that the latter better apply for the route permit when applications for the purpose will be called, while the Director at Bombay apprised the petitioner by letter dated 4-10-1966 that since the route in question was inter-state route it was necessary for the petitioner to obtain the recommendation from the Director of Transport, Panjim, and that since that route was not included in the existing reciprocal agreement between the States of Maharashtra and Goa the question of following the petitioner to ply buses on the route did not arise. It appears that an agreement was arrived at between these two States in regard to Betim-Bombay route sometime just before 14th of July 1967 and on the latter date the Director at Panjim issued four temporary permits for plying as many buses on the route mentioned for a period of four months beginning with 17th of July 1967. The grievance voiced by the petitioner is that such temporary permits were issued without jurisdiction inasmuch as none of the conditions mentioned in Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939, hereinafter called the Act, was satisfied. It is alleged further that the grant of permits under Section 62 of the Act is a quasi-judicial function and that the petitioner is an aggrieved party since it had applied for permit on the same route and it was not given any hearing before the temporary permits were issued to respondent no. 4.

3. The petition was opposed by respondents nos. 3 and 4 by means of separate affidavits. The substance of the contentions raised was that the petitioner having never applied for temporary route permits it is not an aggrieved party and as such it has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, and that the Director of Regional Transport Office, Panjim, was well within his rights in issuing the temporary permits in favour of respondent no. 4 pending the finalisation of the grant of regular permits.

4. In the context of the stand taken by the two contesting respondents, the objection whether or not the petitioner has locus standi to maintain the petition has necessarily to be dealt with before taking up matters touching the merits of the petition. It was held in the case of V.D. Kumarappa v. Secretary of the Home Department, Trivandrum, AIR 1960 Kerala 378, that it is well settled that only party aggrieved can apply for certiorari. In the case of State of Orissa v. Madhan Gopal, AIR 1952 SC 12, it was held that the existence of a right in favour of the writ petitioner is the foundation for the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226. Again, in the case of Kalyan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1183, the Supreme Court enunciated the proposition that a right to maintain a writ petition under Article 226 postulates a subsisting personal right in the claim which the petitioner makes and in the protection of which he is personally interested. The Supreme Court in that case went to the length of laying down that even if the petitioner held a permit on the date of filing the petition in the High Court which was to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document