The court held that the grant of a temporary bus permit on a route where applications for non-temporary permits were pending was not illegal or without jurisdiction, and that the petitioner failed to show that the grant of a temporary permit to respondent No. 2 for a period of 4 months would cause substantial injury to him.

G. M. LODHA, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition should fail as it fails to satisfy the prerequisite condition of substantial Injury or substantial failure of justice to petitioner under Article 226 (1) (b) and (c) of the Constitution.

( 2 ) THE principal point raised by Mr. Mehta is that a temporary Bus permit has been granted to respondent No. 2, Madan Lal on Ramganj-Mandi Rawat-bhata route where an application for non-temporary permit is already pending. Mr. Mehta submits that it is well established law that a temporary permit cannot be granted on a route where applications for grant of non-temporary permits, were invited and the same are pending.

( 3 ) MR. Mehta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has further contended that the grant of permit is, therefore, without jurisdiction and illegal.

( 4 ) IT was further submitted that the non-mention of temporary purpose in the application and the order also makes it illegal because no temporary permit can be granted for a regular service.

( 5 ) I may agree with the legal proposition enunciated by Mr. Mehta, but in view of the view, which I am taking on other preliminary point, it is not necessary to consider them much less to decide them.

( 6 ) AN important rider, placed in Clause (b) and (c) of Article 226 of the constitution, is insistence of requirement of substantial injury in Clause (b) and substantial failure of justice in Clause (c) requires consideration first before a writ can be admitted and considered in limine.

( 7 ) IT is admitted that the scope fixed by the R. T. A. on the above route is of three permits of two returning journeys each. It is also admitted that out of that, travelling public is getting benefit of two vehicles, as only two non-temporary permits have been granted so far. That being so, the petitioner by virtue of non-temporary permit which was granted to him was supposed to be one out of three permit holders and to get benefit of earning only to that extent. Contrary to it the travelling public was supposed to have the benefit of three vehicles plying at the route. Out of that admittedly the public is being deprived of one permit,

( 8 ) MR. Mehta submits that there is no such loss to the public as the two permit holders are plying their vehicles and performing two return journeys.

( 9 ) BE that as it may, the question which requires consideration is whether by grant of one permit of a temporary nature instead of third non-temporary permit, which is bound to be granted to somebody else and may be granted to respondent No. 2, the petitioner can claim that any substantial injury is being caused to him or that any substantial failure of justice has been occasioned.

( 10 ) MR. Mehta has relied on the averment in his writ petition, in para 8, Subclause (b):

"that a temporary permit can be granted for any one of the purposes as specified in Section 62 (1) (a), (b) and (c ). None of the aforesaid reasons were mentioned by the non-petitioner No. 2 in his application for the grant of a temporary permit. The Regional Transport Authority also in its resolution has not mentioned any one of the grounds as required under Section 62 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act for the grant of a temporary permit. Thus, the grant of a temporary permit is contrary to the provisions of the Act and the authoritative decisions laid down by this Honble High Court on a number of occasions. "

According to Mr. Mehta this has resulted in infringement of his rights.

( 11 ) MR. Mehta has also relied upon the judgment of Bombay High Court--Shantilal Ambalal Mehta v. M. A. Ranga-swamy, (1977) 79 Bom LR 633 (FB ). This court has held in the case of Ratan Kumar Pareek v. State of Rajasthan, civil Writ Petn. No. 573 of 1977 decided on 1-3-1978, that the petitioner is required to show substantial injury for redress of which the writ is being sought.

( 12 ) WHILE considering this question in Miss Bharti Chaturvedi v. State of rajasthan, Civil Writ Petn. No. 770 of 1978 decided on January