SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1975 Supreme(Raj) 136

High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : D.P.Gupta
GAFOOR - Appellant
Versus
REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, JAIPUR REGION - Respondent
Civil Writ Petn. 1343 Of 1975
Decided On : 10/17/1975

Advocates Appeared:
B.L.MAHESHWARI, R.R.VYAS, S.M.MEHTA

A temporary permit can be granted only if the permit is required for the purpose or reasons mentioned from (a) to (d) in Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Headnote:

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - Temporary permit - Grant of - Particular temporary need - Interpretation - Circumstances under which temporary permit can be granted - Section 62(1)(c).

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an existing operator on the Ajmer-Sarwar route, challenged the grant of temporary permits to respondents 2 and 3 by the Regional Transport Authority (RTA) on the ground that the grant was without jurisdiction as neither a particular temporary need within the meaning of Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Act) was mentioned in the applications of respondents 2 and 3 for the grant of temporary permits, nor did the RTA come to such a conclusion, nor was any such particular temporary need specified in the temporary permits issued to the said respondents by the Secretary, RTA, Jaipur.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the grant of temporary permits to respondents 2 and 3 was not justified as the conclusion of the RTA that a particular temporary need existed was merely based on conjecture and not on facts placed before and considered by that Authority.

Issues: 1. Whether the grant of temporary permits to respondents 2 and 3 was justified? 2. Whether the RTA came to a definite conclusion that the existence of a particular temporary need within the meaning of Section 62(1)(c) of the Act was established?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. A temporary permit can be granted only if the permit is required for the purpose or reasons mentioned from (a) to (d) in Section 62 of the Act. 2. The purpose for which the permit was desired, as disclosed in the application of respondent No. 3, was to carry a regular service and it has not been argued before me that the purpose so disclosed was a purpose or reason sufficient for the grant of a temporary permit under Section 62 of the Act. 3. The mere existence of vacancies on a route does not constitute a particular temporary need within the meaning of Section 62 of the Act. 4. Merely because filling of permanent vacancies, which were caused not on account of cancellation of existing permits or the discontinuance of existing services, but on account of the increase in the limit of permits on the route, was likely to take some time, it cannot be the basis for holding that a particular temporary need existed.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the order of the RTA dated July 8, 1975 was quashed, and the impugned permits granted to respondents 2 and 3 were set aside.

Judgment


D. P. GUPTA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a writ petition in the matter of grant of temporary stage carriage permits on Ajmer-Sarwar via Srinagar, Ramsar, Debrela, Barada route (hereinafter referred to as the route) and it arises in the following circumstances:--Lalchand, respondent No. 2, was granted a temporary permit on the route by the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur Region, Jaipur (hereinafter called the R. T. A. ) on June 24, 1975 and a permit was actually issued to him in pursuance of the aforesaid grant on July 3, 1975. But probably he realised that the grant of the aforesaid temporary permit in his favour was not proper and so he surrendered the aforesaid temporary permit granted to him. On July 7, 1975 lalchand submitted another application for grant of a temporary permit on the route, in which the purpose for which the permit was required was mentioned as under Section 62 (1) (c) of M. V. Act to meet particular temp, need. An application for grant of a temporary permit on the route was also submitted on July 8, 1975 by respondent No. 3 Mongusingh Dalipsingh, who mentioned the purpose for which the temporary permit was required as to carry Regular service. It is not disputed by the parties that on July 7, 1975 the R. T. A. passed a resolution revising the existing scope of permits on the route from three to five permits and the number of return trips to be performed on the route daily was also increased from two to four return trips per day. The applications for grant of temporary permits submitted by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 on July 7, and 2, 1975, referred to above, came up for consideration before the R. T. A. on july 8, 1975 and the R. T. A. felt that on account of the increase in the scope of permits on the route there were two existing vacancies and that as no application for grant of non-temporary stage carriage permits on the route was pending for consideration before it and the grant of non-temporary permits were likely to take some time in the publication of notice etc. there was a particular temporary need along with a permanent need on the route. In view of this decision, the R. T. A. went on to consider the merits of the various applications for grant of temporary permits and found that the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were most suitable and granted them temporary permits on the route, one each, for a period of four months. This resolution of the R. T. A. is Ex. 3 on record. In pursuance of the aforesaid resolution, temporary permits were actually issued by the Secretary, R. T. A. to the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 on July 10, 1975, but in those permits, the purpose for which they were issued was mentioned as to ply regular service on Ajmer--Sarwar via Ramsar, Dabrela.

( 2 ) THE petitioner, who is an existing operator of the route, has filed the present writ petition challenging the grant of the aforesaid temporary permits to the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 by the R. T. A. and the contention of Mr. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the grant of temporary permits to the two respondents was without jurisdiction as neither a particular temporary need within the meaning of Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been mentioned in the applications of the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 for the grant of temporary permits, nor the R. T. A. came to such a conclusion, nor any such particular temporary need has been specified in the temporary permits issued to the said respondents by the Secretary, R. T. A. , jaipur. On the other hand, Mr. R. R. Vyas appearing for the respondent No. 2, submitted that the respondent No. 2 filed an application (Annexure R/2/1) on july 7, 1975 before the R. T. A. along with the application form for grant of a temporary permit, wherein he clearly referred to the shortage of vehicles on the route for the services allowed and the need of maintaining the necessary services on the route, which constituted a particular temporary need within

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top