( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of Miscellanecous Petitions Nos. 564 and 565 of 1966. Both these petitions are directed against an order of the State Transport Appellate authority passed on 31st October, 1906.

( 2 ) THE case pertains to the grant of stage carriage permits on the route Datia-Chhatarpur, which is an inter-State route, as part of it lies in the State of Uttar pradesh. Under an arrangement with the Government of Uttar Pradesh, permits for four single trips on this route can be granted by the Regional Transport authority, Gwalior. Initially, two single trip permits were granted to two operators one of them being one Hasanand Dharmsingh. Later on the permit granted in favour of Hasanand Dharmsingh was cabcelled. In this way there was vacancy on this route for three single trip permits. Three operators namely Ratanlal, Sindh. Transport Company and Ram Jiwan Gupta applied for permits on this route. The regional Transport Authority, Gwalior considered these applications together. The application of Ram Jiwan Gupta was rejected on the ground that as he was not residing in Madhya Pradesh, he could not make the application for permit to the regional Transport Authority, Gwalior. After thus eliminating Ram Jiwan Gupta, the Authority granted a permit for two trips to Ratanlal and a permit for one trip to sindh Transport Company. Ram Jiwan Gupta then went up in ap-peal to the State transport Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority held that Ram Jiwan Gupta was residing at Datia in Madhya Pradesh and his application for permit was maintable. On this finding the Appellate Authority set aside the dismissal of the application of Ram Jiwan Gupta as also the grants made in favour of Ratanlal and sindh Transport Company and remanded the case to the Regional Transport authority, Gwalior for reconsideration of the applications on merits. Ratanlal (petitioner in M. P. 564 of 1966) and Sindh Transport Company (petitioner in M. P. No. 565 of 1966) have come up to this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution for quashing the order of the Appellate Authority. Ram Jiwan Gupta is impleaded as respondent in both these petitions.

( 3 ) THE first contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the respondent gupta was permanent resident of Uttar Pradesh and even if he was temporarily residing at Datia, he was not entitled to make the application for permit to the regional Transport Authority, Gwalior. It is argued that the word "resides" as it occurs in the second proviso to Section 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 refers to permanent residence and not to temporary residence. It is also argued that the finding of the Appellate Authority that Gupta was residing at Datia is apparently erroneous.

( 4 ) SECTION 45 of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as follows:

"section 45. Every application for a permit shall be made to the Regional transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles: provided that if it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles in two or more regions lying within the same State, the application shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which the major portion of the proposed route or area lies, and in case the portion of the proposed route or area in each of the regions is approximately equal, to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to keep the vehicle or vehicles: provided further that if it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles in two more regions lying in different States, the application shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which the applicant resides or has his principal place of business. "

( 5 ) THE question raised is about the meaning of the word "resides" as it occurs in the second proviso. In its ordinary meaning the word is capable of embracing permanent as also temporary residence. Referring to the word "resides" in Section 33 of the Registration Act, 1908, t