( 1 ) WHEN this matter came up on 13-7-1989 before two of us, sitting in Division Bench. petitioner's counsel placed reliance on two decisions of Apex Court and also an unreported Bench decision of this Court, rendered at the Main Seat on 23-9-1981 (Capital Roadways and Finance Pvt. Ltd. , Bhopal v. S. T. A. , Gwalior ). Because validity was challenged of a temporary permit expiring in August, 1989, hearing of the petition was expedited. On 27-7-1989, respondents 3 and 4, the permit-holders entered appearance through counsel and cited another unreported Bench decision of this Court rendered also at the Main Seat on 25-11-1988 in the case of Mahesh Kumar Singh v. R. T. A. , Rewa. Counsel for the parties conceded that there was conflict between the two decisions and submitted that the matter be heard by a Larger Bench. Hence, it is before us today. ( 2 ) DURING the course of hearing, Shri J. P. Gupta, appearing for the permit-holders, raised a preliminary objection. But, we refused to entertain the same and decided to hear the matter to resolve the conflict and settle the law for the compelling reason stated below. Counsel contended that the permits being issued by R. T. A. , Rewa and the route being also outside the territorial jurisdiction of Gwalior Bench, the petition has to be heard at the Main Seat. Admittedly, however, the petitioner has challenged the impugned permits in revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal; Gwalior, for short, the 'tribunal', and the petitioner came before us as the office of the Tribunal was vacant and there was likelihood of that revision being rendered infructuous. Shri Nigudkar also contended that respondents having submitted to the jurisdiction of this Bench and having conceded that they would like to have a decision of this Court to resolve the judicial conflict abovereferred they must be deemed to have waived their right of hearing on facts at the, Main Seat. We are of the view, however,, that Judges of this Court sitting at ,any Seat can render a valid and binding decision for the entire State on any legal issue, except that of "vires" which is decided at the Main Seat. Our decision in this matter is a compelling necessity for correct law being applied by the Tribunal in disposing early the pending revision. Shri Nigudkar also submitted that Hon'ble the Chief Justice having taken decision for this petition to be heard at this Bench, under the Rules of this Court, his decision cannot be questioned. We do not think if it is necessary at all, in the circumstances of the case and for the reason aforesaid, to decide Shri Nigudkar's contention or even Shri J. P. Gupta's counter-contention based on the residential Order regarding this Bench's territorial jurisdiction.

( 3 ) BEFORE referring to the legal controversy dealt with by the, two conflicting decisions aforementioned, we consider it proper to state briefly the factual contentions of parties raised in this petition. The permits annexed to the petition and challenged in the revision aforesaid, Annexures P/7 and P/8, issued respectively to respondents 3 and 4 were of a month's duration, expiring on 16-5-1989. But, it is conceded that monthly temporary permits are being issued for the same route to the two respondents and those are expiring in August, 1989. For that, apparently, justification is found in the order passed on 6-4-1989 (Annexure-P/6) by the R. T. A. Rewa, holding that scope existed for grant of temporary permits on that route. It appears that the petitioner's objection was considered and the view taken by R. T. A. was that the objection was in regard to the time of departure from Rewa. That order is also impugned for reasons to be stated hereinafter. The route in regard to which the petitioner has raised grievance is - Khogapani-Shahdol-Rewa of which the portion of the route between Rewa to Shahdol is 171 K. Ms. It is contended by Shri Nigudkar that part of the route is covered under the 'approved" sch