The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation on granting temporary permits successively and the absence of provisions for existing operators to raise objections at the time of permit consideration under the Act, 1988.

This writ petition has been filed raising the grievance that the petitioner is an existing operator and permits are granted on his route on temporary basis repeatedly, which is not permissible in law.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioner claims to hold a permanent stage carriage permit on the route in question, namely, Aligarh-Sikandera Rau, Jalesar- Hathras Junction. His grievance is that the Regional Transport Authority, respondent No. 1 is successively/repeatedly granting temporary stage carriage permits on the said route,which is not permissible in law. Petitioner has filed representation/objections dated 30-3-2002 before the respondent No. 1 Regional Transport Authority, Aligarh, which has not yet been decided. Hence this petition.

3. Shri A. R. Dube, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that granting temporary stage carriage permit successively/repeatedly is not envisaged under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the Act, 1988) nor such a course was permissible under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the Act 1939) and temporary permits are being granted in violation of the statutory provisions. The petitioner has filed representation before the respondent No. 1 which has not been decided. Hence this Court should issue direction to decide the said representation after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

4. Learned Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the petition contending that not a single person who had been granted temporary permit has been impleaded nor any particulars of such grant has been furnished. Petition is not maintainable on such vague pleadings. Even otherwise if petitioner is aggrieved of such a grant, he is free to maintain the revision under the Act, 1988, but writ petition does not lie. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. In identical cases, this Court has directed the petitioners to file representation and directed the authorities to dispose of the same in accordance with law. Therefore, Shri A. R. Dubey, learned Counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the same directions may be issued.

7. The issue of grant of temporary permit repeatedly is no more res integra and it has been considered by the Honble Supreme Court from time to time.

8. In Gandhara Transport Company Ltd. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 1245 and Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. K. Venkatarami Reddy, AIR 1972 SC 683, the Honble Supreme Court held that renewal or re- valuation of a temporary permit or extension of period, for which a temporary permit is issued, is not contemplated by law. The issue of temporary permit by the State Transport Authority continuously for a number of years, is clearly in violation of the Statute for the reason that temporary permit can be granted only and only if the permit is required for the purpose or reasons mentioned in Clauses (a) to (d) of Section 62 (1) of the Act 1939.

9. In M/s Basant Roadways v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and others, AIR 1987 SC 116, the Honble Supreme Court has held that such a recourse cannot be taken under the provisions of law, as temporary permit cannot be re-issued repeatedly even when it is made-out that there is a grave need for increasing the regular number of service on the route in question in the public interest.

10. Similarly, in A. Vishwanathan v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Pondichery, AIR 1987 SC 731, the Honble Supreme Court observed as under :

"the action taken by the State Transport Authority is issuing temporary permit repeatedly for a long period of years is clearly in violation of the letter and spirit of Section 62 of the Act, under which such temporary permits are issued. . . . . . . . . . . Under Section 62 of the Act, it is permissible to a Regional Transport Authority to issue temporary p