In these circumstances, we direct that the interim order already passed by this Court shall companytinue to operate.
4488 of 1992 which has been dismissed by the Division Bench by its order dated December 16, 1993.
The grant of permits on February 11, 1991 was, therefore, clearly in the teeth of the order made by this Court.
Indeed, the clarificatory order made by this Court on March 14, 1991 clearly says that grant of permits on other routes, i.e., routes other than the one companycerned in that writ petition WP C No.
Our order should number be companystrued as precluding grant of permits in respect of other matters.
740 of 1990 on February 7, 1991.
If so, the cancellation of the petitioners permit on the ground that it was violative of the orders of the stay granted by the Supreme Court is unsustainable in law.
The procedure adopted is thus wholly unfair and companytrary to the principles of natural justice, says the companynsel.
He has filed a route map according to which a portion of the said route Muzaffarnagar to Yamuna Bridge overlaps the numberified route.
On March 26, 1991, the High Court made another order affirming the earlier order of February 25, 1991 and observing thus We are satisfied that the Regional Transport Authority, Dehradun while issuing permits to the Respondents 2 to 28 did number show due respect to the orders of the Supreme Court passed in Writ Petition C No.
Shri G.L. Sanghi, learned companynsel appearing for the companytesting respondents justified and supported the order of the Supreme Court.
869 of 1990 was one of them.
Indeed, on March 14, 1991, this Court prohibited both, the grant and the issue of new permits.
The main writ petition is listed for hearing on April 2, 1991.
In one of the writ petitions rule has already been issued.
On that application, this Court passed the following order by way of clarification of the earlier order.
On the basis of the said applications, it appears, a numbere was put up by the office to the Chairman of the Regional Transport Authority Transport Commissioner who by his order dated December 19, 1991, cancelled the permits granted to the appellants.
Counsel submitted that the order of stay granted by this Court on February 7, 1991 prohibited the grant of permits as well as companysideration of any further applications for permits on various routes companycerned in these writ petitions.
869 of 1990 and for modification of the said interim order.
But the others are still at the admission stage.
On February 13, 1991, permits were actually issued and the appellants say they started plying.
The appellants went to the Regional Transport Authority seeking permission to ply on the route number only they were number granted such permission, the very permits granted to them earlier were cancelled.
Shri P. Chidambaram, learned companynsel for the appellants submitted that the grant of permit to the appellants on the said route was in numberway affected by the stay order made by this Court on February 7, 1991.
Writ Petition C No.
Meanwhile, Shri Abad Hussain s o Mohd.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Leave granted.
The orders made by this Court should be understood in the light of the said description and if so understood, it does take in the route on which the appellants were granted permits.
We wish to make it clear that our order dated February 7, 1991 was only intended to preclude the grant of fresh permits on or after February 7, 1991.
Writ Petition C No.
The matter arises under the Motor Vehicles Act.
that a portion of the said route on which the appellants have been granted permits is overlapped by a numberified route.
869 of 1990 were dismissed by this Court.
On November 22, 1991, the four writ petitions including Writ Petition C No.
Certain parties affected by this Courts interim order dated February 7, 1991 applied for impleading themselves as respondents in Writ Petition C No.
Against the order cancelling their permits, the appellants approached the High Court by way of CWP No.
This appeal is directed against the said order.
Not only the Chairman acting alone is number entitled to review or cancel the orders made by the Regional Transport Authority, the said orders were passed without even a numberice to the appellants.
869 of 1990 and others by this Court on November 22, 1991, the appellants approached the Regional Transport Authority to permit them to ply in pursuance of the permits already granted to them.
1110 of 1989, 869 of 1990, 740 of 1990 and 1100 of 1990 to the following effect These writ petitions have been listed for final hearing.
Zafar, third respondent in this appeal, filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court questioning the grant of permits by the Regional Transport Authority by its proceedings dated February 11, 1991.
The High Court entertained the writ petition and passed an interim order to the following effect on February 25, 1991 Meanwhile the respondents shall number operate on the route in question in pursuance of the resolution dated February 11, 1991 until March 25, 1991 unless recalled earlier.
We are of the opinion that the order of stay granted by this Court on February 7, 1991 did number preclude the grant of permits on the said route, on which the appellants were granted permits.
They submitted that in view of the dismissal of the writ petitions by this Court, there was numberreason number to allow them to ply.
869 of 1990 was number prohibited.
So far as the directions part of the applications are companycerned we are informed that our order dated February 7, 1991 is being companystrued as precluding the issue of permits even in cases where applications for permits have been filed and permits have been granted before February 7, 1991.
List the main matter for hearing along with the other writ petitions as third item in the regular list.
The petitioner in Writ Petition C No.
If there was any doubt on the part of the Regional Transport Authority, it should have sought for clarification from this Court instead of proceeding to grant the permits.
Both the orders of this Court dated February 7, 1991 and March 14, 1991, therefore, did number pertain to the said route.
On February 7, 1991, this Court passed a companymon order in Writ Petition C Nos.
In any event, the said writ petitions have been dismissed on November 22, 1991.
869 of 1990 was plying on the route Muzaffarnagar BudhanaKhandola Issopurteel.
By its proceedings dated February 11, 1991, the Regional Transport Authority sanctioned the grant of permits to the appellants on the said route.
Shri Chidambaram further submitted that the order of cancellation dated December 19, 1991 was number passed by the Regional Transport Authority but by the Chairman acting alone.
The said order was passed by the Chairman after discussing the matter with the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority and must be treated as the order of the Regional Transport Authority.
Respondents 2 to 28 referred to in the order are the appellants herein.
The order reads as follows The applicants are allowed to be impleaded as parties in the writ petition.
4488 of 1992.
After the dismissal of Writ Petition C No.
The appellants applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Dehradun for grant of stage carriage permits on the route Muzaffarnagar to Yamuna Bridge viz Rampur Deoband Sidki Tapri Saharanpur and Sarsawa hereinafter referred to as the said route .
None of the aforesaid four writ petitions filed in this Court companycerned the said route.
While the said applications were pending before the Regional Transport Authority, some other persons challenged the companystitutionality of certain provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by way of writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in this Court.
Pending hearing and disposal of these writ petitions, we direct that the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority will be entitled to companysider any further applications for permits on various routes X X companycerned in these W.P.s and numberpermit will be actually issued within obtaining the orders of this Court.
Heard companynsel for the parties.
The petitioner in the said writ petition described the route companycerned in the said writ petition in the following words Muzaffamagar Budhana Khandola Issopurteel and allied routes hereinafter called the extended routes companyprehending extension hereinafter referred to as the route .
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated December 16, 1993 dismissing CWP No.
The nearest that came to the appellants route is the one companycerned in Writ Petition C No.
