CW1867/2009 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1867/2009 Mahaveer Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Others Date of Order ::: 22.12.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri K.C. Sharma, Counsel for petitioner Shri K. Verma, Additional Government Counsel for respondent State Shri Lokesh Sharma, Counsel for respondent No.4 #### By the Court:- This writ petition has been filed by petitioner assailing order passed by State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'Tribunal'), which has rejected his appeal. In Tribunal petitioner had challenged order passed by Regional Transport Authority (for short, 'RTA'), which declined to renew petitioner's permit on premise that in agreement entered between State of Rajasthan and State of Haryana on 22.07.1997, Hanumangarh and Sirsi route was nowhere in existence and therefore renewal cannot be permitted. The Tribunal has upheld the same line of reasoning. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that since application for renewal was not in consideration before the Tribunal, it could not have rejected that application. It is CW1867/2009 // 2 // contended that renewal is a civil right and that the Tribunal and RTA have failed to consider this aspect of matter. It is contended that in fact there was an application filed under Section 87(1) (d) for temporary permit pending renewal application, and the RTA could not have rejected the renewal itself. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner earlier filed writ petition before this court. Appeal against original rejection order of renewal was pending for consideration before this court and therefore RTA could not have rejected the renewal. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submitted that permission was granted to petitioner for period 1995-2000 for five years. In meantime, a fresh agreement was entered between State of Haryana and State of Rajasthan in 1997 in which Hanumangarh-Sirsi route was not included. When the permit expired in 2000, petitioner prayed for renewal. Application for renewal was rejected by RTA and it is against that order that petitioner filed this writ petition and subsequently filed appeal, which is pending before Division Bench. It is submitted that when another period of five years has expired by 2005, petitioner again submitted an application before RTA under Section 87(1)(d) of Motor Vehicles Act for issuance of temporary permit, which could not be granted. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused entire record. I find that there was CW1867/2009 // 3 // absolutely no justification for grant of temporary permit to petitioner only because his appeal against refusal of renewal by RTA was pending before Division Bench. Main issue would have to be decided in Division Bench appeal. Division Bench while admitting appeal observed that grant of any interim relief to petitioner, who was appellant in that appeal, would tantamount to granting final relief without adjudicating the claim. In the circumstances, impugned order does not suffer from any error. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//