( 1. ) THE petitioner holds a regular stage carriage permit on route Sidhi-Amiliya via Churhat. A part of the route is covered by a scheme proposed under section 63 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The respondent No. 2, Rajbahore Patel filed an application for grant of temporary permit on this route. It was granted by the Regional Transport Authority. That permit expired on 6-7-1989. It appears that thereafter the respondent No. 2 applied for grant of another temporary permit. The petitioner objected to this. However, by order dated 5-7-1989, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority granted the temporary permit for one month. The permit is Annexure-C. The petitioners objections were overlooked. The petitioner has challenged this grant of temporary permit to the respondent No. 2. Ordinarily, the petitioner would have filed an appeal/revision to the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. It, however, came directly to this Court raising a question as to the competence of the Authority to grant the permit after the coming into force of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with effect from 1-7-1989. This Court, therefore, entertained this petition despite there being the alternative remedy of approaching the State Transport Appellate Tribunal.

( 2. ) THE petitioners contention has been that the appointment of Regional Transport Authority under 1939 Act (hereinafter called the old Act) is not saved and, therefore, the application by the respondent No. 2 for grant of permit could not be entertained unless the Authority is appointed under 1988 Act (the new Act ). To appreciate this contention, certain provisions of both the Acts be noticed. Transport Authorities were constituted in the State by force of section 44 of the old Act. Sub-section (2) of section 44 prescribed that a State Transport Authority or a Regional Transport Authority shall consist of a chairman who has had judicial experience and in the case of a State Transport Authority, such other officials and non-officials, not being less than two, and, in the case of a Regional Transport Authority, such other persons (whether official or not), not being less than two as the State Government may think to appoint. . . . . . . . . . . . The second proviso to that sub-section was as follows:

"provided further that the State Government may (i) where it considers necessary or expedient so to do, constitute Regional Transport Authority for any reason so as to consist of only one member who shall be an official with judicial experience;"

By State amendment, this proviso was substituted as follows:

"provided that if the State Government so thinks fit, the Regional Transport Authority may consist of a siagle official who has judicial experience. "

(vide M. P. Act No. 9 of 1961 ). In the new Act, the provision for constitution of Transport Authority is contained in section 68. The proviso to sub-section (2) of that section is exactly similar to such proviso appended to sub-section

(2) of section 44 of the old Act. A Regional Transport Authority in exercise of this power in Rewa Division has been constituted with effect form 11-8-1989. However, between 1-7-1989, i. e. , after the new Act came into force, and until 10-8-1989, there was no such appointment and the appointment under the old Act continued. Even so, the petitioner alleges that the Commissioner who was appointed as Regional Transport Authority was transferred and there was, therefore, no person to act as Regional Transport Authority. The argument is that appointment of the Regional Transport Authority under the old Act is not saved in terms of the various saving clauses contained in section 217 of the new Act. The principal argument to support this contention has been that the provisions contained in section 217 (2) (a) of the new Act, in so far as they relate to the appointment of Regional Trnasport Authority, are inconsistent with the provisions of the old Act in this behalf. We are unable to accept this contention and reject it