A. Narayana Pai, C.J.
1. Thepetitioners who are operators of stage carriage service on the route which passes through a section of the route between Shimoga and Honnali assail the grant of a temporary permit in favour of the second respondent in respect of the route between Shimoga and Honnali on the main ground that the situation is such that no permit could have been validly granted under Clause (d) of Subsection (1) of Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
2. Under the said Clause a temporary permit can be granted 'pending decision on an application for the renewal of a permit'. The second respondent had secured a permanent permit in respect of the same route which was due to expire on 21st January 1971. His application for renewal thereof was filed on 24th December. 1970.
3. The contention on behalf of the petitioners is that the application for renewal was belated and that the delay in presentation is not even capable of being condoned by virtue of the provisions of proviso (a) to Section 58(2) and 58(3) of the Act, and that therefore there was no valid application for renewal. The further contention is that unless there is a valid application for renewal, the conditions necessary for grant of a permit under Clause (d) of Section 62(1) are not satisfied at all.
4. We do not feel disposed to go into this contention for the simple reason that the existence or continuance of a permanent permit (though by virtue of an order of stay granted by this court in another writ petition) may be regarded as sufficient ground to hold that there is a need for a stage carriage service on the route in question. Therefore, to cancel the permit is to deprive the public of the benefit of a service, which is too great a sacrifice to be made for the purpose of deciding a technical ground.
5. We decline to interfere. The Writ Petition is dismissed.