A rival operator is entitled to maintain a writ petition to challenge a temporary permit granted to another operator.

S. N. KATJU, J. :- (For himself and Rajeshwari Prasad, J.) : The petitioner Sheo Charan Das Sharma filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for a writ of certiorari for quashing certain resolutions passed by the first respondent, the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut. He further prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the second respondent, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Meerut, not to issue any temporary permits to opposite party-respondents 3 to 14. Satish Chandra, J., who heard the matter, referred the following question for decision to a large Bench :

"Is a rival operator entitled to maintain a writ petition to challenge a temporary permit granted to another operator?"

2. The petition then came before a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Verma and Rajeshwari Prasad, JJ. They found that the decisions of this Court on the question were conflicting. They pointed out that several Single Judges of this Court had answered this question in the affirmative while it had been answered in the negative in two Division Bench decisions of this Court (Civil Misc. Writ No. 690 of 1965, Mahendra Sen Jain v. State Transport (Appellate) Tribunal, U. P., Lucknow, decided at Lucknow on 5th of November, 1965, and Civil Misc. Writ No. 1870 of 1961, Sri Mohammad Jafar v. Regional Transport Authority, Meerut, decided on 5th of October, 1962. Verma and Rajeshwari Prasad, JJ., referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Nageshwar Rao v. Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Authority, AIR 1959 SC 308 and Raman and Raman Ltd. v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 694, and expressed a doubt as to the correctness of the aforesaid decisions of the two Division Benches of this Court. In view of the importance of the question they referred the same for decision by a Full Bench.

3. There are three separately classified routes, which are relevant to the present case, within the jurisdiction of the first respondent, viz., (1) Meerut-Kankar-khera-Sardhana- Mumera-Bayanwal- Kuan-Budhana (hereinafter referred to as route No. (1), (2) Meerut- Kandarkhera- Banoo-Sardhana-Bhuni Parai-Doghat-Tikri (hereinafter referred to as route No. 2) and (3) Meerut-Kankar-khera-Nanoo-Sardhana-Bhooni-Barnawa Binauli (hereinafter referred to as route No. 3).

4. The petitioner is an existing operator of a stage carriage on route No. 3. The number of stage carriages plying on the aforesaid route as fixed by the first respondent some time in December 1953 was 18. It appears that soon after the number was reduced from 18 to 17 by the first respondent in exercise of its powers under Sec. 47 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the Act). According to the petitioner, the first respondent had fixed different and separate time tables for the operators on the aforesaid three routes and the operators plied their stage carriages on the said routes in accordance with their respective time tables. The first respondent by its resolution No. 42 (b) dated 2/4-8-1961 and 4/5-9-1961 resolved to amalgamate the aforesaid three routes into one route. By a subsequent resolution the amalgamated route was extended upto Kotana. The decision of the first respondent regarding the aforesaid amalgamation and extension of the route was subject to the approval of the State Transport Authority. On 25/26-7-1962 the State Transport Authority U. P. disapproved the aforesaid amalgamation of the three routes as also the extension of the route upto Kotana. Thereafter the first respondent, on 16/18-10-1962, set aside the amalgamation of the three routes and restored the old three routes. It, however, issued temporary permits on the initially proposed amalgamated route and such permit-holders started operating their vehicles on the amalgamated route on the basis of a common time-table. Thereafter 16 existing operators of route Nos. 2 and 7 and existing operators of route No. 3 applied to the first respondent for the inclusion of routes Nos.