A permit granted under the Motor Vehicles Act must be interpreted in the context of the Act, and as such must be interpreted so as to relate to a road on which the public have a right of access.

ORDER :- The petitioners applied for the grant of a permit on the Allahabad Udainbuzurg via Karari-Manjhanpur-Sirathu route. A portion of this route between Makhaukapul and Beni Ramka Purwa is a nationalised route. The petitioners allege that they had filed a sketch map of the route along with their application for permit, but this has been denied in the counter-affidavit. Be that as it may a permit was granted to the petitioners by a resolution of the Regional Transport Authority (vide resolution No. 8 dated 20-9-1969 and 7-10-1969). The permit granted to the petitioner mentioned the route as Allahabad-Udainbuzurg via Karari-Manjhanpur-Sirathu with a corridor restriction on a notified portion between Makhaukapul and Beniram Ka Purwa. The petitioners started plying on this route. Starting from the city of Allahabad, they passed from the Manori crossing, which is on a notified route, and thereafter took a route which linked up Manderi crossing with Bhagwatpur. Thereafter they passed through Makhaukapul, Beniram Ka Purwa, and then reached Udainbuzurg. The respondents, however, insisted that the petitioners should not pass through Mandaori crossing, but take an alternative route between Allahabad City and Makhaukapul, which passes through Rajruppur, Jhalva and Bhagwatpur. The driver of the petitioner who was plying the stage carriage was prosecuted under Sections 42/123 of the Motor Vehicles Act for coming upto Manderi crossing. He was, however, acquitted by the order of the Civil and Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 378 of 1970, on the finding that there had been no contravention of the conditions of the permit, but in spite of this acquittal the respondents continued interfering with the petitioners' plying upto Manderi crossing and as a result, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

2. Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the permit of the petitioners being for the Allahabad-Udainbuzurg route, the petitioners were entitled to start from Allahabad and reach Udainbuzurg via the public highway which passes Manderi crossing, and the respondents had no jurisdiction to interfere with the petitioners' plying their buses upto via Manderi crossing. In this context, it is further urged that the alternative route suggested by the respondents is not a public place, or a public road or a public highway inasmuch as a portion of this route is the property of the Defence Department, and the Defence Personnel prevent the buses of the petitioners plying on that portion of the road. It is next contended that inasmuch as the territorial limits of the Allahabad Corporation extends to a place one furlong short of Manderi crossing, the petitioners are under the permit entitled to begin their journey at any place within the precincts of Allahabad Corporation and as after reaching that place the only route by which they can reach Udainbuzurg from that place, would be by crossing Manderi, subject of course to corridor restriction, the respondents cannot have any grievance in case the petitioners' buses ply by Manderi crossing route, and thereafter take a diversion route upto Bhagwatpur. Counsel for the respondents however, contends that the permit of the petitioners was for the route beginning from Allahabad City and passing through Rajruppur, Jhalva, Bhagwatpur (as shown in Annexure-'B' to the counter-affidavit). It has also been contended that the mere fact that a portion of this route belonged to the Defence Department, did not make that route a private route, and took it out of the category of a public place or public road or a public highway, and further inasmuch as no interference was being caused by the Defence Department in the plying of the buses of the petitioners, the petitioners, were not entitled to pass through Manderi crossing. In respect of the second contention raised by the petitioners, it is urged that the permit of the petitioners was one which entitled them to start the journey from