A transport authority must provide clear justification and assess actual public needs when granting temporary permits, ensuring existing transportation sufficiency is evaluated.

ORDER

1. This is a petition filed by the petitioners while praying for the following reliefs :--

(i) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus this Hon’ble Court may kindly be graciously pleased »to issue writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 3.7.2024 (Annex.-P/4) as well as temporary permit of the respondent No. 4 (Annex.-P/6).

(ii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus this Hon’ble Court may kindly be graciously pleased to issue writ/direction to the respondent No. 3 not to grant temporary permit without delegation of power under rule 67 of the M.P. MotorVehicle Rules.

(iii) Any other reliefs which this Hon’ble Court deem| fit in the circumstances. of the case, may also be granted to the petitioner together with the cost of this writ petition.

2. The facts as detailed in the petition reveal that the petitioners are engaged in the business of transportation and are holding regular as well as temporary permits. Respondent No. 4 moved an application for grant of temporary permit on Silwani-Bhopal route, on which the temporary permit Annexure P-6 was issued to respondent No. 4 pursuant to impugned order dated 3.7.2024 (Annexure P-4). Thus, challenging the order dated 3.7.2024 (Annexure P-4) as well as temporary permit (Annexure P-6), this petition has been filed.

3. The counsel for the petitioners contends that respondent No. 4 did not elaborate temporary need in the application and therefore, the application was in contravention to section 87(1)(c) of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT . The petitioners' objection was already there, inasmuch as, respondent No. 4 had earlier applied for grant of temporary permit. The said objection was not considered. Respondent No. 3 was duty bound to consider the objection of the petitioners, yet without considering the same, the temporary permit Annexure P-6 was issued vide impugned order dated 3.7.2024 (Annexure P4).

4. The counsel for the petitioners submits that order dated 3.7.2024 (Annexure P-4) is not sustainable in view of the law laid down by this Court in Writ Petition No. 12880 of 2024 (Ajit Kumar Jain v. The State of M.P. & others) decided on 28.5.2024 wherein it has been held that in the application for grant of temporary permit, the need should be specified and the Authority is also required to consider that the Buses already plying on the route in question are not sufficient to cater the need of commuters. However, this aspect has not been considered by the Authority while passing the impugned order. It is contended that even this Court in Writ Petition No. 12762 of 2024 (Suman Chaurasiya v. The State of M.P. & others) decided on 22.5.2024 observed that the Authority instead of issuing temporary permit should try to grant regular stage carriage permit as the temporary permit cannot be a substitute for stage carriage permit. It is further contended by the counsel for the petitioners that in the impugned order it is mentioned that respondent No. 4 in Column No. 5 of the application mentioned that temporary permit was required as there was season of agricultural production, commencement of academic session in schools/colleges and festivals as well, as a result of which there was expectation of increase in inflow of commuters. It is contended that such vague reasons could not have been made basis to grant temporary permit in favour of respondent No. 4. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

5. The counsel for the State has opposed the prayer made in the petition and it is submitted that the Authority after duly co