Wanchoo, C.J.—This is an application by Jairam Dass under Art. 226 of the Constitution for a writ, direction or order in connection with certain orders of the Transport Authority.

2. The facts of the case briefly are that the applicant was granted a permit by the appellate authority in June, 1953. Thereafter he applied to the Regional Transport Authority for the issue of the permit. Eventually on the 23rd February, 1955 the Regional Transport Authority cancelled the permit under Rule 86(b) as the applicant had failed to produce the requisite vehicle. Thereafter the Regional Transport Authority granted a temporary permit to Laxminarain for two months. It is said that this permit was renewed for another three months. Eventually in July, 1955, it was renewed till the grant of a pucca permit. Thereupon the applicant made this application. His contention is that it was not open to the Regional Transport Authority to grant temporary permits like this one after the other and that sec. 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act does not contemplate this.

3. The relevant portion of sec. 62 which we are concerned is this—

"A Regional Transport Authority may at its discretion, and without following the procedure laid down in sec. 57, grant permits, to be effective for a limited period not in any case to exceed four months, to authorise the use of a transport vehicle temparily............

(c) to meet particular temporary need"

The contention of the applicant in this case is twofold. In the first place it is urged that there was really no temporary need and therefore no temporary permit should have been granted. In the second place the submission is that even if there was a temporary need, the Regional Transport Authority should not have granted a temporary permit for a total period longer than four months.

4. So far as the first point is concerned, the matter was considered in two cases of this court namely Kotah Transport Ltd., vs. The Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur(l) and Khandari Babu vs. The Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur(2) to which one of us was party. In the first case it was held that the mere fact that there was a persistent demand on the part of the general public for more stage carriages and that there was a great rush of passengers on a route did not amount to a temporary need and a temporary permit could not be issued merely on that ground. In the second case it was held that where the Regional Transport Authority was of the view that the existing regular bus service was not sufficient to meet the traffic and decided to increase the number of regular buses plying on the route, it had the power to grant a temporary permit till the necessary formalities for increasing, the regular permits were gone through and that this would amount to a temporary need. We are told that there is some confusion in the minds of those who have to apply these cases. It is enough to state that if properly read, there is no contradiction between them. In the first case it does not appear that the Regional Transport Authority had decided to increase the number of regular permits. It was in those circumstances that it was held that merely because there was a great rush of traffic that was not a case of temporary need. In the second case the Regional Transport Authority had decided to increase the number of regular permits. But as the procedure under sec. 57 is a long drawn out one, and takes time, the Regional Transport Authority was justified in giving temporary permits to meet the temporary need till the regular permit was granted. Thus read, there is on contradiction between the two cases and the law laid down in them, if we may say so with respect, is correct. In the case before us the regular permit granted to the applicant had been cancelled. There was thus a shortage of the necessary number of vehicles on this route and the Regional Transport Authority had thought it fit to provide for this temporary need till a regular permit was granted after going

Click Here to Read the rest of this document