In the Writ Petition he obtained an interim order dated 11.9.1984 under which he was allowed to operate his motor vehicle as a stage carriage on the same terms and companyditions as the numberinee of the CorpOra tion.
38 had been approved and had companye into effect from June 1, 1985 and dismissed the writ petition on January 6, 1986.
Since numbertemporary permit was obtained by the Corporation thereaf ter the petitioner companyld number ply his motor vehicle in ques tion.
The route in question came within scheme No.
After the disposal of the special leave petitions referred to above on July 22, 1985 by this Court, on October 17, 1985 a Constitution Bench of this Court delivered its judgment in Adarsh Travels Bus Service Anr.,
Aggrieved by the said advertisement the peti tioner filed the writ petition, referred to above, in the High Court.
The petitioner was permitted to ply his bus on the monthly basis during that period.
The above order, it is alleged, was passed on a companycession made bY the Corporation.
Under the agreement the petitioner was liable to pay periodically certain amount to the Corporation as numberination fees or supervision charges and additional taxes.
Reliance is also placed by the learned companynsel for the petitioner on the order passed by this Court on July 22, 1985 in some of the special leave petitions referred to above permitting the petitioners therein to operate their motor vehicles as the numberinees of the Corporation for a further period of five years.
The said order is number supported by reasons.
The petitioner companytinued to ply his motor vehicle on the route in question on the basis of the temporary permits issued in the name of the Corporation till 31.5.1985.
The petitioner further companytended that the decision to invite tenders was arbitrary and illegal.
941, 4667 to 4669, and 7115 7117 of 1985 dated July 22, 1985 filed by some others, the petitioners therein who were similarly situated were allowed to ply their motor vehicles on some other routes as the numberinees of the Corporation for a period of five years.
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.1.1986 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc.
In the meanwhile under the orders passed by this Court in Special Leave Petition Nos.
The permit of the Corporation was to expire on 23.12.1982Therefore the Corporation applied for renewal of its permit but since it took time for finalisation, tempo rary permits were issued from time to time.
The petitioner relying upon the above order company tended before the High Court in the writ petition filed by him that he should also be permitted to ply his motor vehi cle as a numberinee of the Corporation for a further period of five years.
Aggrieved by the order of the High Court the petitioner has filed this petition.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Special Leave Petition Civil No.
It is alleged that the petitioner who was an unemployed graduate entered into an agreement with the Corporation to ply his bus as a numberinee on the route Gwalior to Chinor via Dabra for a period of five years ending on December 23, 1982.
The petitioner companytended that even though he had been regularly paying the numberination fees and taxes, yet the Corporation in order to earn more money by way of numberination fees had invited tenders from others with a stipulation that tenders of those giving the highest offers by way of numberina tion fees would be accepted and they would be appointed numberinees of the Corporation to ply the stage carriages.
Petition No.
But on 12.8.1984, as stated earlier, tenders were invited by the Corporation from private operators for the grant of the privilege of running buses as stage carriages as the numberinees of the Corporation.
In the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court the petitioner had questioned the validity of an advertisement issued by the Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation hereinafter referred to as the Corporation inviting tenders from owners of motor vehicles for plying their vehicles on the routes mentioned therein as numberinees of the Corporation under the permits issued in favour of the Corporation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
K. Venugopal, G.L. Sanghi, M.N. Krishnamani and Diwan Balak Ram for the Petitioner.
3486 of 1986.
2577 of 1984.
Rameshwar Nath for the Respondents.
2577 of 1984 dated 6.1.1986.
It is companytended on behalf of the petitioner that since the petitioner had been permitted to operate his motor vehicle as a stage carriage service as a numberinee of the Corporation under a programme called Half a Million Job Programme initiated by the Government of India which was being implemented by the State of Madhya Pradesh he companyld number be denied the privilege of companytinuing to operate his motor vehicle on the numberified route in question.
The order of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J. The petitioner in the above petition filed under Article 136 of the Constitution has prayed for special leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Miscellaneous Petition No.
