Renewal of temporary permit periodically held violation of Section 87 of the Act.

Petitioners seek to quash the order of the first respondent dated 2.6.2006 in R.P. Nos. 38 and 39 respectively and to forbear the second respondent from granting temporary permit to the 4th respondent in respect of their vehicle bearing registration No. TN-33-N-1065 to ply on the route Kovilpatti bus stand to Kuruvikulam with IST Kovilpatti bus stand to Kalugumalai.

2. The relief sought for and the facts in both the writ petitions are identical and hence I feel it suffice to narrate the facts in W.P.No. 4914 of 2006 alone, which are as follows.

• (a) Petitioner is operating a Stage Carriage bearing registration No. TN-69-V-1314 on the route Kovilpatti stand to Ramalingam (via) Kalugumalai with independent trips between Kovilpatti bus stand to Kuruvikulam with another IST between Kovilpatti Bus stand to Kalugumalai and the length of the route is 28 kms. Petitioner is operating the vehicle as a Town service route and per day he is operating 14 singles and collecting the rates as fixed by the Government. The State Transport Corporation is also operating buses on this route, No. 14 from Kovilpatti to Kuruvikulam.

• (b) The second respondent granted temporary permit to the 4th respondent for the period from 2.1.2006 to 1.4.2006 to ply vehicle on the route Kovilpatti bus stand to Kuruvikulam 10 singles and Kovilpatti to Kalugumalai 4 singles. According to the petitioner, previously 4th respondent operated in the said route without obtaining any permit and hence the petitioner filed W.P.No. 2318 of 2006 challenging the temporary permit granted to the 4th respondent before this Court and writ petition was dismissed on 13.3.2006 on the ground that alternate remedy is available to the petitioner. Petitioner filed W.A.No.100 of 2006 before the Division Bench of this Court and the same was also dismissed on 17.3.2006. The Division Bench directed the petitioner to file an appeal or revision before the appropriate forum and if any such appeal/revision is, filed, the same was directed to be disposed of within 30 days from the date of filling.

• (c) According to the petitioner, in the meantime the temporary permit granted to the 4th respondent came to an end on 1.4.2006 and thereafter it was renewed for another three months from 2.4.2006 to 30.6.2006, against which the petitioner filed revision in R.P.No.38 of 2006 before the STAT, which was dismissed on 2.6.2006 and the same is challenged in W.P.No. 4914 of 2006.

3. Under similar facts and circumstances, petitioner in W.P.No. 4915 of 2006 filed revision in R.P.No. 39 of 2006 before the STAT, which was also dismissed on 2.6.2006, against which W.P.No. 4915 of 2006 has been filed.

4. The 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that considering the representation of the people in the villages and in order to cater to the needs of the public and to facilitate them, additional trips were undertaken by the 4th respondent for which temporary permit was granted and the Tribunal also gave specific reasons for dismissing the revision petitions considering the scope of Sections 87 and 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

5. An additional counter affidavit was also filed by the 4th respondent wherein it is stated that there are 26 Educational Institutions situate between Kovilpatti and Kuruvikulam route, which consist of 20 schools, 5 Colleges and one Polytechnic and more than 1,500 students, who are entitled to get free pass are travelling in the bus. Taking note of the said fact, the 4th respondent thought it fit to apply for temporary permit and considering the said request the second respondent issued temporary permit and there is no illegality in the said order.

6. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents.

7. On 29.6.2006, this Court admitted both the writ petitions and passed an interim order, which reads as follows,

“There will be an order of injunction against the second respondent from gr