Judgment:
ORDER
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. This petition has been listed for orders along with an application for vacating stay. The learned Counsel for the parties agree that the matter may be heard and disposed of finally. Sri B.R. Sundaraja Gupta, learned Counsel appears on behalf of the petitioner, and Sri M.S. Rajanna, learned Counsel appears for the opposite parties.
3. The petitioner in this case has prayed for quashing of resolution dated 17.7.1996 bearing Sub. No. 154/96-97 and annexed as Annexure 'A'.
4. According to the petitioner's case, the petitioner is already operating a stage carriage service on the route Thalavagilu to Paniyapura and back and Ramaghatta to Paniyapura Extension and Thalavagilu to Harapanahalli and back. Petitioner's further case is that on 5.6.1996, respondent No. 2 made an application for grant of a permanent stage carriage permit on the route Chitradurga to Davanagere and back. On 17.7.1996, certain objection was taken relating to overlapping portion of the notified route by the 3rd respondent and thereafter the respondent No. 1 - the Regional Transport Authority, Chitradurga, passed a resolution (Annexure -'A') dated 17.7.1996 granting the temporary permit for a period of four months stating that it is in the interest of travelling public. Feeling aggrieved by the grant of temporary permit in favour of respondent No. 2, the petitioner has come up before this Court by this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri B.R. Sundaraja Gupta Submitted that the Regional Transport Authority acted without jurisdiction in granting the temporary permit as temporary permit cannot be said to be granted except under any of the circumstancesand conditions or circumstances specified under Section 87 and therefore it should be quashed.
6. The learned Government Pleader for respondent No. 1 contended that this temporary permit has been granted to suffice the temporary need in this present case. The learned Government Pleader Smt. Vidya elaborating her contention contended that a reading of the order reveals that as an objection was raised that the portion of the route overlaps the notified route of Bellary scheme. Therefore there was a necessity to ascertain the truth in the contention raised by the KSRTC and as there was a necessity to investigate and to take report in the interest of the public, the authority pending the disposal of that application, has granted temporary permit in favour of the respondent No. 2.
7. The learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 Sri N.S. Rajanna contended that he intended to raise contention, but such contention did not appear to arise from the order. The resolution only purports to dispose of the petitioner's application for grant of permanent permit and when applicant applied for grant of a regular stage carriage permit, there was no question of granting the temporary stage carriage permit except in case the authority thinks to dispose of the matter later on after investigation. But nothing as such appeared from the order. Sri Rajanna Submitted that if the trend of the order is like that or is to be read like that as contended by the learned Government Pleader, then it may be considered to be a case of temporary need in the interest of the public as well as in the matter of final disposal of the application for regular permit and the case may be said to be covered by Section 87. Otherwise, the proper course in such a case would be that if this order passed by the Regional Transport Authority is taken to be final, disposing of the application for regular permit by granting temporary stage carriage permit, then this order is bad.
8. I have applied my mind to the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties. Under Section 87 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Regional Transport Authority as well as the State Transport Authority have been conferred with power and jurisdiction to grant permits without following the procedure laid down in Section 80, temporary permits to be effective for a limited period which is not toexceed in any case the period of four months. In other words, temporary permit can be granted for a limited period of four months in any case covered by any of the clauses (a) to (d) of Section 87(1) or it is covered by Sub-section (2) of Section 87. Clause (c) to Sub-section (1) of Section 87 indicates that a temporary permit car be granted to meet a particular temporary need. A particular temporary need, no doubt, arises in cases where an application for a regular permit has been made, but for the circumstances of that case it may require some longer period for disposal of the application for grant of a regular permit, then on the other hand, there is a particular need for temporary permit in the interest of the public or there is a need or requirement of a carriage service, then that may be said to be a case of particular temporary need in the case. In cases where certain objection has been raised such as in the present case that the portion of the route overlaps the notified route, then the authority has to make up its mind after ascertaining the facts even by calling certain reports, if an enquiry is made by the Inspector concerned, it has to make up its mind and arrive at a conclusion whether grant of a permit will result in overlapping the notified route or not and disposal of such application it may take time, then it may be said that the authority can grant temporary permit for a limited period of four months. It will be a case of granting of a temporary permit pending the disposal of the application for a regular or permanent permit which the transport authority is or is not able to dispose of in certain specific circumstances. But in such cases, the authorities are expected to indicate the particular type of circumstances in which disposal of an application for regular permit requires some time. In the present case, from a perusal of the order, I do not find any such material which may indicate that the temporary permit has been granted keeping the application for regular permit to be disposed of. Really it appears to me that when the representative of the KSRTC raised the objection that grant of a regular stage carriage permit may result in overlapping with reference to the notified route under Bellary scheme, the Regional Transport Authority tried to find out a device to grant an immediate relief by way of temporary permit. This is not permissible in law. If the scheme did fall under notified route and then there was likelihood of overlapping in the portion of the notified route and application for regular permit could not be granted i.e., if the regular permit couldnot be granted by the authority, the authority would not have got jurisdiction to grant temporary permit on that route. It definitely might have been a different case if the matter would have been kept for consideration and the matter had Jo be disposed of. But the trend of the order indicates that the application has been disposed of finally. It is well settled principle of law that what you cannot do directly you are not permitted to do indirectly. Here authority has tried to do indirectly what he has no jurisdiction to do directly. In such circumstances' and particularly when the facts of the case do not indicate any such circumstances as existing which would have entitled to grant temporary permit under Section 87, in my opinion, the order granting temporary permit is bad and without jurisdiction. In case of overlapping and inability of the Regional Transport Authority to grant a regular stage carriage permit, the proper course for the Regional Transport Authority is to reject the application in clear terms for grant of a regular stage carnage permit. The learned Counsel for the opposite party, at the end, Submitted that this Court may direct the respondent No. 1 to dispose of the application finally. I think there is no Substance in this request as I have taken in my opinion that the Regional Transport Authority on looking to the objection that there will be overlapping, the Regional Transport Authority instead of rejecting the application, granted temporary permit. But the order of the Regional Transport Authority appears to be rejecting the application of the petitioner for regular stage carriage permit by necessary implication. So no further direction need be given to the Regional Transport Authority in this regard except quashing the order granting the temporary permit. The grant of temporary permit, as such is hereby quashed.
The Writ Petition, as such, is hereby allowed. The order - resolution dated 17.7.1996 granting the temporary permit in favour of the respondent No. 2 is hereby quashed. Parties to bear their own costs.