ORDER
1. This is the second successive writ petition filed by the petitioner. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the proceedings issued by the respondent in Memo No. 27822/A1/97 dated 25-4-1998. The petitioner made an application for pucca stage carriage permit on the existing town service route Venkatanagar to Patavala. The said application was rejected by the respondent. Against the said rejection the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in AP No.380 of 1996. The said Tribunal after considering the matter allowed the appeal on 18-3-1997 and directed the authorities to issue permit to the petitioner on the route in question. It as the case of the petitioner that he purchased the bus in pursuance of an order of the appellate authority and kept the vehicle ready to ply the same on issue of permit. But,
however, the Andhra Pradesh State Road transport Corporation filed Writ Petition No.6010 of. 1997 challenging the order of the Tribunal in Appeal No.380 of 1996 and the same wa suspended on 13-4-1997. Therefore, the petitioner made an application for grant of temporary stage carriage permit under Section 87 on 28-8-1997. When the application was not considered, he filed Writ Petition No.3759/98 and it was disposed of on 6-3-1998 to consider the application and pass orders according to law. However, the respondent rejected the application on 19-3-1998. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.8155 of 1998. This Court after considering the matter disposed of the writ petition on 2-4-1998 with a direction to consider the application of the petitioner under Section 87(2)(1) of the Act and pass appropriate orders. Accordingly, the matter was again considered by the 2nd respondent and the application was rejected on 25-4-1998 and the said rejection order is assailed in this writ petition. It is also noticed that the petitioner also filed Contempt Case No.1354 of 1998 alleging wilful and deliberate violation of the Orders of this Court.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that permit was directed to be issued by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in pursuance of the orders in Appeal No.380 of 1996 and when that order is suspended by this Court in a writ petition filed by the Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation, he made an application for grant of temporary permit on the route in question under Section 87 of MV Act duly considering the matter under Section 87(2)(ii) of MV Act. But, however, that order was set aside and the respondent was directed to consider the matter under Section 87(2)(i) of the MV Act. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent has virtually passed an order contrary to the directions of this Court thereby he has not only committed contempt of this Court, but also the order itself is wholly baseless and contrary to law.
3. The learned Government Pleader submits that the order passed by the authority was in pursuance of the directions granted by this Court and submits that the order is quite legal and valid. The respondent rejected the application under the impugned order by stating thus :
“The grant itself suspended by the Hon’ble High Court and on what grounds the temporary permit application to be considered. As per Section 87(2)(i) of the MV Act, 1988 where the permit is restrained for a certain period then only the question of issue of temporary permit arises. In this case, the petitioner is not having any permit.
He is only a grantee on the route, that grant also suspend by the Hon’ble High Court in WPMP No.7218/97 in WP No.6010/97 on 30-4-1997.
The temporary permit application is considered and disposed of under Section 87(2)(i) of MV Act, 1988 and rejected on the following grounds:
(1) The original grant of STAT was suspended by Hon’ble High Court in WPMP No.7218/97 in WP No.6010/97 dated 30-4-1997. Hence, the petitioner is not having any permit on the said route.
(2) As per Section 87(2)(i) of MV Act, 1988, he is not having any permit on the route and if that permit was restrained by any Court or authority then only the issue of temporary permit arises. In this case the petitioner is not a permit holder.
Section 87(2)(i) and Section 87(2)(ii) of MV Act applicable only to the applicants having permit and that permit was suspended or restrained by Court or any competent authority then only two questions of issue of temporary permit arises.
For proper appreciation of the case it is necessary to extract Section 87 of MV Act, which reads as follows:
“87. temporary permits:–(1) A Regional Transport Authority and the State Transport Authority may without following the procedure laid down” in Section 80, grant permits, to be effective for a limited period which shall, not in any case exceed four months, to authorise the use of a transport vehicle temporarily-
(a) for the conveyance of passengers on special occasions such as to and from fairs and religous gatherings, or
(b) for the purposes of a seasonal business, or
(c) to meet a particular temporary need, or
(d) pending decision on an application for the renewal of a permit, and may attach to any such permit such condition as it may think fit:
Provided that a Regional Transport Authority or, as the case may be, State Transport Authority may, in the case goods carriages, under the circumstances of an exceptional nature, and for reasons to be recorded in writing, grant a permit for a period exceeding four months, but not exceeding one year.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a temporary permit may be granted thereunder in respect of any route or area where-
(i) no permit could be issued under Section 72 or Section 74 or Section 76 or Section 79 in respect of that route or area by reason of an order of a Court or other competent authority restraining the issue of the same, for a period not exceeding the period for which the issue of the permit has been so restrained; or
(ii) as a result of the suspension by a Court or other competent authority of
the permit of any vehicle in respect of that route or area, there is no Transport Vehicle of the same class with a valid permit in respect of that route or area, or there is no adequate number of such vehicles in respect of that route or area, for a period not exceeding the period of such suspension :
Provided that the number of Transport Vehicles in respect of which temporary permits are so granted shall not exceed the number of vehicles in respect of which the issue of the permits have been restrained or, as the case may be, the permit has been suspended.”
A reading of section clearly indicates that a temporary permit could be granted to contain four situations under sub-section (1) of Section 87 of MV Act. But, however, disregarding those situations, the temporary permit could also be granted under subsection (2) of Section 87 to meet two different situations. Under Clause (i) of sub-section (2) of Section 87, a temporary permit may be granted where no permit could be issued under Sections 72, 74, 76, or 79 in respect of the concerned route or area on account of the order of the Court or competent authority restraining the issue of permit and that temporary permit could be issued for period not exceeding the period for which the permit has been so restrained. The second situation is that existing permit of any vehicle was suspended by any Court or other competent authority and there was no Transport Vehicle of the same class with valid permit to cover that area or there was no adequate number of vehicles in respect of that route. In such an event also temporary permit could be issued for a period not exceeding the period of suspension. However, the grant of temporary permits are subject to further conditions that they shall not exceed the number of vehicles in respect of which issue of permits have been
restrained or permits have been suspended as the case may be. A critical analysis of sub-section (2) would make it clear that Clause (1) covers the cases where the permits could not be issued on account of the orders of the Court or the competent authority and sub-clause (2) applies where the permits of any vehicle already issued are suspended. Therefore, Clause (1) applies prior to the issue of permits while Clause (2) applies the period after the issue of permits. The section is silent as to who is entitled to make an application under Section 87. It is not necessary that the person who has been granted permit and has not been issued with permit on account of the restrain order passed by the Court or competent authority, should only apply. Similarly, if a permit of a vehicle is suspended, it is not necessary that the person whose permit has been suspended should only apply. In that interregnum period, the period of restraint or period of suspension, it is open for any person including the persons who are covered by sub-section (2) of Section 87 can make an application and the same has to be considered with reference to the provisions of the MV Act. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioner only filed an application for grant of temporary permit to whom no permit could be issued on account of stay granted by this Court. But, it is not necessary, that lie alone, who filed an application for temporary permits should apply and there is no such prohibition under Section 87. Therefore, it is clear that to replenish the vaccum created in the interregnum period, between the grant of permit and issue of permit to any person or during the period of suspension, sub-section (2) was enjoins upon the authorities to grant temporary permit apart from granting the temporary permits to meet the situations under sub-clause (1) to (d) of sub-section(1) of Section 87. The respondent was under mistaken impression that if the permit is restrained for certain period then only, the question of issue of temporary permit arises. The respondent has not properly appreciated the scope and
purport of Section 87. Admittedly, in the instant case, the application of the petitioner for grant of pucca stage carriage permit was allowed by the appellate authority and the said order of appellate authority was suspended by this Court in a writ petition filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. But, this application relates to grant of temporary permit. As far as the temporary permit is concerned, it has nothing to do with the grant of pucca stage carriage permit and as has already observed temporary permit coujd be issued under various contigencies. But, one need not be a permit-holder and that the procedure laid down under Section 80 need not be followed in respect of the temporary permits. Therefore, irrespective of the fact that whether a person is a permit holder or not the matter lias to be considered. May be in this case, the petitioner was granted permit, but the same was not issued due to the reasons stated above. But, that makes no difference in the eye of law. The petitioner has to be treated as a person applying for temporary permit without reference to the application made by him for grant of pucca stage carriage permit and issue of permit was suspended by this Court. More over, the understanding of the authority is that the issue of permit ought to be issued for a particular period and if it restrained by any Court or authority, the application for temporary permit could be considered. This ex facie appears to be incorrect approach and contrary to clause (i) of subsection (2) of Section 87 of MV Act. What is mentioned in the said clause is that the temporary permit could be granted for a period not exceeding the period for which the issue of permit has been so restrained. Therefore, till such time, the restraint order is in force, it is open for the authority to consider the application for temporary permit. Similarly, under Clause (2) it could be issued for the period for which the suspension is in operation. No specific periods need be mentioned as it depends on disposal of the matters by the concerned authorities or
the Court. Thus, the temporary permits could be issued for a period of four months or till the period of restraint or period of suspension extinguishes whichever event occurs earlier. However, for the next spell of temporary permits, the person has to make fresh application it may be a person who was already holding the temporary permit or it could be a person other than the person holding the temporary permit and it has to be considered in accordance with Section 87. The respondents proceeded with the matter quite contrary to law without properly appreciating the statutory provisions under Section 87. The statutory provision has to be interpreted keeping in view the object and purpose for which it was enacted. The object is apparent in sub-sections (2) of Section 87, that in order not to inconvenience to the travelling public, whenever the permit is suspended or when the permit could not be issued on account of restraint order by the Court or competent authority, the application for temporary permit could be considered without following the procedure under Section 80. of the MV Act. If the view of the respondent is accepted, the very object is frustrated.
4. Accordingly, the impugned orders arc quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration in accordance with law keeping in view the aforesaid principles. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three weeks.
That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as above.