Alok Sharma, J.

1. Under challenge is the letter dated 06.01.2017 whereby the Secretary, State Transport Authority has directed all Secretaries of the Rajasthan Transport Authority and Regional Transport Officers that permits not be issued to stage carriage permit holders plying the vehicles under the Lok Parivahan Seve Scheme on notified routes. It has also been prayed that it be directed that the application for issue of a special permit under section 88(8) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1988') at the instance of the petitioner be expeditiously decided by the jurisdictional Regional Transport Authority.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is a stage carriage permit holder under Lok Parivahan Seva Scheme plying his bus over a notified route. The permit issued to the petitioner inter alia included a condition referable to Clause (xiv) of Rule 5.19 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 (hereinafter 'the Rules of 1990') which provides that the buses with stage carriage permits shall not be utilised for any other purpose except with prior approval of the State Transport Authority. It is in this context that the impugned advisory/directive under the letter dated 06.01.2017 has been issued.

3. Mr. Satish Khandelwal appearing for the petitioner submitted that Section 88(8) of the Act of 1988 is a special provision for grant of special/temporary permits. It was submitted that consequently each permit holder has a right of consideration of the application moved under the aforesaid provision for a special/temporary permit to deal with an emergent situation. It was submitted that the Kerala High Court in the case of Vijayan Pillai v. R.T.O. Trissur reported in 2003(1) KLT 184 decided on 29.08.2002 has held that as temporary/special permits under the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act can be granted, an application made by a permit holder to deal with emergent situation needs to be fairly considered. It was submitted that Clause (xiv) of the Rule 5.19 of the Rules of 1990 cannot thus be construed in a manner contrary to Section 88(8) of the Act of 1988 as interpreted by the Kerala High Court in view of the fact that as the Central Act its provisions have an overriding effect over State law. Counsel submitted that the Kerala High Court's judgment is founded upon law decided by the Apex Court in Surinder Singh v. Central Government [AIR 1986 SC 2166]. Mr. Satish Khandelwal then submitted that the blanket ban under the STA's letter dated 06.01.2017 on the issue of the special/temporary permits to holders of stage carriage permits under the Lok Parivahan Seva Scheme by the jurisdictional RTA's is wholly without authority of law and thus be quashed and set aside. And the application of the petitioner under Section 88(8) of the Act of 1988 pending before the RTA for grant of special permit be directed to be expeditiously decided.

4. Mr. S.K. Gupta, AAG appearing for the respondent-Transport Department submitted that the petitioner is bound by the conditions of the stage carriage permit issued to him under the Lok Parivahan Seva Scheme. Thereunder in terms of Clause (xiv) of Rule 5.19 of the Rules of 1990, a prohibition obtains on the grant of special/temporary permit to the buses operating on national scheme under a stage carriage permit. Mr. S.K. Gupta further submitted that the Lok Parivahan Seva Scheme was carved out by the State Government for running of private buses on notified routes in public interest in consonance with the needs of the travelling public. And in the event such stage carriage permit holders were allowed to utilise their buses and run them on special/temporary permits it would be defeating the whole purpose of the new scheme formulated by the State Government, and the Lok Parivahan Seva Scheme itself and be contrary to public interest. It was submitted that in this view of the matter, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. Heard. Considered.

6. It is not in dispute that t