ons for special leave to Appeal Civil Nos
2430 2431 2436 to 2438 2442 2443
2445 2446 2472 and 2480 of 1969 and 3 of 1970
From the orders dated December 8 1969 of the Madras High Court in Civil Misc
Petitions Nos
15375 of 1969 etc
in Writ Appeals Nos
519 of 1969 etc
K K Venugopal and R Gopalakrishnan for the petitioner in SLP Nos
2430 2431 and 2438 of 1969
section Mohan Kumaramangalam M K Ramamurthi G Ramaswamy Shyamala Pappu and Vineet Kumar for the petitioners in SLP No 2436 of 1969
M K Ramamurthi G Ramaswamy Shyamala Pappu and Vineet Kumar for the petitioner in SLP No 2437 of 1969
A section Nambiar for the petitioner in SLPs
2442 2443 and 2472 of 1969
496 M C Setalvad V Subramanian and K Jayaram for the petitioner in SLP Nos 2445 2446 and 2480 of 1969 and 3 of 1970
Madan Mohan for respondent No 1 in SLP Nos
2430 2431 2436 2437 2438 2442 2443 and 2472 of 1969
O C Mathur for respondent No 1 in SLP No 2445 of 1969
R Gopalakrishnan for respondent No 1 in SLP No 2480 of 1969
K Thirumalai A T M Sampath and E C Agrawala for respondent No 1 in SLP No 3 of 1970
The Order of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah CJ These are petitions for special leave against the orders of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras by which the High Court has ordered that the permits granted by the Regional Transport Authority will operate and not those which the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in appeal granted
The facts may be stated taking as a sample Special Leave Petition No 2430 of 1969
The original grantee of the permit by the Regional Transport Authority may be described as A 
The date of the grant was November 20 1966
On appeal by the respondent who may be described as B  the State Transport Appellate Tribunal cancelled the grant made to A by the Regional Transport Authority
This was on July 18 1967
A writ petition was thereupon filed by A and it was allowed by the learned single Judge on November 4 1969 and the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal was quashed
When the matter went before the Letters Patent Bench it was observed that in view of the fact that only the grantee of the Regional Transport Authority had a valid permit it was not possible to grant any permit to B who was recognised by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal
They followed an earlier ruling of the court and restricted the grant pending disposal of the Letters Patent appeal to the grantee of the Regional Transport Authority who alone was permitted to operate on the route
It appears that only one operator could be allowed on this route because of a section 473 determination
In these petitions for special leave which are ex facie against the orders made in interlocutory proceedings the attempt is to get the permits restored to B
It is claimed that this involves a question of jurisdiction and that question is whether the High Court could recognise A the grantee of the Regional Transport Authority when his permit had been cancelled by the State Transport Appellate 497 Tribunal
We think that these are matters into which this Court cannot be invited to go under article 136 of the Constitution because the appeal itself is pending before the High Court and what the High Court has done is to give effect to the order of the learned single Judge
In other words the Letters Patent Bench has not attempted to pass any special order of its own staying the operation of the decision of the learned single Judge
We think it would be wrong for us to interfere at this stage
It may be that the question may come up in some other form before us when the appeals from the Letters Patent decision are brought before this Court
If and when this happens we may find it convenient to express our opinion on the question of jurisdiction of the High Court to go into such matters in appeal or in original writ petitions
Beyond this we do not wish to express any opinion one way or the other at this stage
We accordingly order the dismissal of these special leave petitions reserving to the petitioners the right to raise such questions as may legitimately be raised when they choose to file appeals against the decision of the Letters Patent Bench
Stay granted by this Court is vacated
VPS Special Leave Petitions dismissed


Summary:
The Regional Transport Authority granted to the respondent a permit to operate a bus on a route
The grant was set aside by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal on appeal filed by another applicant
The order of the STA was quashed by a Single Judge of the High Court in a writ petition filed by the grantee from the RTA
When the matter went before the Letters Patent Bench it was observed that since only the grantee from the RTA had a valid permit it was not possible to grant any permit to the appellant before the STA pending the disposal of the Letters Patent Appeal as only one operator could be allowed on the route
In the petition for special leave to appeal to this Court under article 136 against the interlocutory order on the question of the jurisdiction of the High Court to recognise the grantee from the RTA when his permit was cancelled by the STA HELD This Court would not go into the matter at this stage because the appeal itself was pending before the High Court and all that the Bench had done was to give effect to the order of the Single Judge pending disposal of the appeal
497 A B