1. There was a route Neem-ka-thana to Alwar, for which the petitioner has been granted a temporary permit, which was to run up to April 28, 1977.
2. A scheme for the route from Neem-ka-thana to Kotputli has been approved and notified under Section 68-D (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Another draft scheme under Section 68-C has been prepared for the route -- Kotputli to Alwar. The said scheme has not yet been approved under Section 63-D. Respondent No. 2, the Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation, applied and obtained from the R.T.A., respondent No. 1, temporary permit to ply its buses from Neem-ka-thana to Alwar. After the grant of permit, the R.T.A., by its order dated April 1, 1977, ordered that as permit has been granted to the Corporation, and as it will not be having two permits, the permit of thepetitioner will cease to be effective as soon as the Corporation is given the second permit applied for and put the buses on the route. The petitioner has therefore felt aggrieved and has come up to this Court,
3. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel forthe petitioner, contended that no permit can be given to the Corporation for route from Neem-ka-thana to Alwar. Section 68-FF puts a restriction on the grant of permit in respect of notified area. Proviso, however, permits the R.T.A. to grant temporary permits to any person in respect of such notified area, or route, if no application for the permit has been made by the State Transport Undertaking in respect of any notified area or notified route in pursuance of an approved scheme. The Corporation has not yet applied to implement the scheme. Mr. Sharma urged that proviso to Section 68-FF permits only a private operator to apply for the temporary permit but bars the State Transport Undertaking to apply for the temporary permit in the interval before the permit for the implementation of the scheme is issued. I am afraid I find no such support for such contention. The proviso provides that temporary permit be given to any person if the State Transport Undertaking has not applied for permit on this route. I can see no justification why the proviso would only permit a private operator to obtain a temporary permit and prohibit the State Transport Undertaking to that effect. As a matter of fact, there has been an amendment in the said Act by State Act No. 10 of 1974, which has added Sub-section 68 (1-AA) to Section 68-F, which provides that where State Transport Undertaking applies for grant of temporary permit in respect of any route which comprises a notified area or route or portion thereof and any other route or area specified in any scheme published under Section 68-C, the R.T.A. or the S.T.A. shall issue temporary permit prayed for Sub-section (1-AA) of Section 68-F therefore clearly permits that temporary permit can be given to the State Transport Undertaking in respect of any notified route as well as a route covered by the draft scheme. No doubt, Mr. Sharma urges that Sub-section (1-AA) of Section 68-F is void and beyond the competency of the State Legislature. This argument, however, in order to succeed, necessarily assumes that proviso to Section 68-FF prohibits the State Transport Undertaking toobtain a temporary permit in respect of a notified route and consequently, the said State amendment being in violation of the Central provision would be bad. I have already said that in my opinion the proviso to Section 68-FF makes no such bar, and I, therefore, see no reason to hold Sub-section (1-AA) to Section 68-F to be void.
4. So far as the route from Kotputli to Alwar, in respect of which draft scheme has been published, is concerned, Sub-section (1-A) of Section 68-F of the Act specifically provides for the grant of tem-porary permit in respect of any area or portion for which the scheme has been published under Section 68-C of the Act. It is apparent that even the Central Act permits a temporary permit to be granted to the State Transport Undertaking in respect of a route for which a scheme has been published under Section 68-C of the Act. I therefore do not see how any objection can be made to respondent No. 2 being granted temporary permit on the route from Kotputli to Alwar. One of the objections which Mr. Sharma has sought to raise was that one permit has been given for the whole portion from Neem-ka-thana to Alwar and as the notified route and route for draft scheme comprise separate routes, this was not correct. He however conceded that even petitioner's permit for Neem-ka-thana-Alwar route was only one and not two separately.
5. In any case, this is only a technical objection, because a permit can be given to the undertaking for both routes, one for Neem-ka-thana-Kotputli and the other for Kotputli-Alwar route; whether it is given by means of one permit or two permits, is hardly a matter calling for interference in these extraordinary proceedings.
6. Mr. Munshee, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 had sought to raise the point that the petitioner could not operate from Kotputli to Alwar because of the bar of Sub-section (1-C) of Section 68-F, which, according to him, provides that if temporary permit has been granted to State Transport Undertaking, the temporary permit, even if already given to a person, will cease to operate on the issue of permit to the State Transport Undertaking in respect of that route. I do not feel it necessary to decide this point in view of the fact that the temporary permit under which the petitioner, is, at present, plying, in any case, is going to expire by tomorrow. The petitioner, if he is to operate in future, will necessarily have to obtain a fresh permit and in that case, just as it will be open to the petitioner to raise any point in support of its plea for grant of a permit, it will necessarily be also open to respondent No. 2.
7. With these observations, the petition is dismissed summarily.