1. This application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution by the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation is for the issue of a writ of certi-orari for quashing an order dated 24th November 1967 of the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, granting a temporary permit for a period of four months to the respondent No. 3 Ashwani Raikumar Mining and Trading Company. Jagdalpur, for the running of a stage carriage on Jagdalpur-Kirandul route.
2. The route from Jagdalpur-Kirandul covers the track from Jagdalpur to Geedam and then Geedam to Bailadila via Kumarras and Kameli. As held by this Court in Rajkumar Gurwara v. R. T A. Raipur Misc. Petn. No. 259 of 1967 D/- 5-7-1967 (Madh Pra) Bailadila and Kirandul are really one and the same terminus. Under a Scheme notified under Section 68-D(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. the Corporation has been given the exclusive right of plying services on Jagdalpur-Bhopalpatnam route. The route runs through Geedam and thus it consists of two parts, namely, one from Jagdalpur to Geedam and then from Geedam to Bhopalpatnam. The notified Scheme also gives to the petitioner-corporation the right to ply services ''conjointly with others' on Geedam-Bailadila route. At the time the Scheme was notified, no person was holding any permit for the entire route from Jagdal-pur to Bailadila.
3. On 29th August 1967, the respondent No. 3 made an application to the Regional Transport Authority. Raipur, for the grant of a temporary permit for running a service from Jagdalpur to Kirandul and back stating that 'there was a permanent service on the timings he had applied', that the permanent service had come to a halt and until the question of the grant of a permanent permit was decided, there was a temporary need under Section 62(c) of the Act. The respondent No. 3 also stated in its application that there was no service between Jag-dalpur and Kirandul and dislocation of 'permanent service was a great resentment to travelling public.' While granting this application, the Regional Transport, Authority made the following order:
'M. P. S. R. T. C. has so far not made any application for a permit and I am not in a position to assess the value of the statement made by D. M. Bastar. There is, however, an application of M/s. Ashwani Raj-kumar Mining and Trading Co., Jagdalpur. Since D. M. certifies scope, and the Commissioner -Raipur has been pressing for extra transport on the route and also since the public and M. L. A. have been demanding extra facilities, a temporary permit for 4 months be given to the applicant on the condition that they will not lift passengers from and for stations between Jagdalpur and Geedam. reserved for exclusive operation by M. P. S. R. T. C. Timings may be suitably adjusted Meanwhile proposals be put up for more permanent arrangements. A draft order piercing the ceiling may be put up and thereafter vacancy bp notified for invitine applications '
4. It was argued by Shri Dabir. learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Regional Transport Authority made the grant in favour of the respondent No. 3 without applying its mind to the question whether there was a 'particular temporary need' to justify the grant and without considering the position that under the notified Scheme the Corporation was given the exclusive right to operate services from Jagdalpur to Geedam which overlaps a part of the route for which the respondent No. 3 was granted a temporary permit. It was submitted that when the approved Scheme provided for total exclusion of private operators from Jagdalpur to Geedam, the Regional Transport Authority had no iurisdiction to grant a permit to the respondent no. 3 from Jagdelpur to Bailadila even with the restriction of prohibiting the respondent no. 3 from 'lifting passengers from and for stations between Jagdaplur and Geedam.'
5. It our judgment, this application must be granted. It is plain from the application made by the respondent No. 3 and the impugned order passed by the Regional Transport Authority that the temporary permit was granted to the said respondent on the ground of a 'particular temporary need' falling under Section 62(c) of the Act. It is true that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in M.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. R. T. A. Raipur, AIR 1966 SC 156 a temporary permit can be granted under Section 62(c) even when there is a permanent need. But from this it does not follow that whenever there is a perman-ent need then it must be taken that a per-ticular temporary need also exists. See Raipur Transport Co. v. R. T. A. Jabalpur, AIR 1967 Madh Pra 141. The Regional Transport Authority has to decide for itself whether in the facts and circumstances of a case there exists a particular temporary need before it can issue a permit under Section 62(c). This the Regional Transport Authority utterly failed to do in the present case. It did not at all determine whether there existed a particular temporary need in respect of the route. This is plain from the impugned order itself. The District Magistrate, Bastar, had reported to the Regional Transport Authority that there was scope for additional service on the route in question and the petitioner-Corporation was prepared to run an additional service and that no private operator should be allowed to ply the service. The Regional Transport Authority dismissed this report by just observing that it was not in a position to assess the value of the statement made by the District Magistrate, Bastar. as the Corporation had not made any application for a permit. Merely because the Corporation had not applied for a permit, a temporary permit could not be granted to the respondent No. 3 assuming that there was a particular temporary need. On the question of a particular temporary need, the Regional Transport Authority did not form its own opinions. It said that 'since the District Magistrate certifies scope, and the Commissioner, Raipur. has been pressing for extra transport on the route and also since the public and M. L A have been demanding extra facilities a temporary permit for four months be given.' Thus, the grant of a temporary permit was founded on the opinion formed by the District Magistrate, the Commissioner and some members of the public and not on the judgment of the Regional Transport Authority that there was a particular temporary need. In the present case, the grant of a temporary permit for Jagdalpur to Kirandul route to a private operator could not be made merely on finding that there was a particular temporary need of a service on the route. The Regional Transport Authority was further required to consider whether it was competent to grant to a private operator a permit in respect of any route which overlaps a part of the notified route in the approved Scheme, namely, Jagdalpur to Geedam, even subject to the condition that the operator shall not pick up passengers on the notified route. This question it should have determined on a consideration of the nature and extent of the exclusion of private operators under the Scheme. The Scheme provided for a complete and total exclusion of private operators From Jagdalpur to Geedam and provided for the running of services by the Corporation 'conjointly with others' on Geedam -- Bailadi1a route. The Regional Transport Authority completely overlooked the nature and extent of the exclusion of private operators under the approved Scheme and made the grant in favour of the respondent No. 3 without determining the existence of a particular temporary need. It has been pointed out by this Court in M.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. R. T. A. Raipur, 1968 MPLJ 10 = (AIR 1968 Madh Pra 116) that on the basis of a mere difference in timings, no finding could be based as regards 'a particular temporary need'.
6. For these reasons, our conclusion isthat the order dated 24th November 1967of the Regional Transport Authority, Raipur,granting a temporary permit to the respondent No. 3 cannot be sustained. It is quashed. The petitioner shall have costs of thisapplication. Counsel's fee is fixed at Rs. 75.The outstanding amount of the security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner.