C. R. No. 203 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 203 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : February 04, 2010 The Modern Sehkari Parivahan Samiti, Ambala and others .... Petitioners Vs. State of Haryana and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 2565-C-II of 2010 : Allowed as prayed for and Annexures A-1 to A-6 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main Case : This is revision petition by Transport Societies under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 08.01.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Ambala in appeal preferred by respondents/defendants, thereby allowing the said appeal and setting aside the order dated 01.06.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ambala City, thereby allowing application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in C. R. No. 203 of 2010 (O&M) 2 short – CPC), for temporary injunction filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs. The trial court, vide order Annexure P-1, restrained the respondents from interfering in the route of the plaintiffs and from cancelling the existing route till opening of original closed route of the plaintiffs. However, the Appellate Court set aside the order Annexure P-1 passed by the trial court and dismissed the plaintiffs' application for grant of temporary injunction. The plaintiffs have route permits for routes nos.12 and 14 to 17 under Unemployment Scheme for plying buses for transportation of passengers from Ambala City to Babyal via Jagadhri Gate, Kalka Chowk, Baldev Nagar Crossing, Model Town Crossing, Sadar Bazar, Vijay Rattan Chowk, Mahesh Nagar. The plaintiffs were accordingly plying their buses on the said routes. However, on account of construction of fly-over at Baldev Nagar and on account of closure of the route by Army/Air Force near Air Force Station for heavy vehicles, the plaintiffs made representation and accordingly, their routes were changed. Thereafter, Baldev Nagar fly- over has been opened, but rest of the original route is still closed for heavy vehicles. However, the defendants (State Authorities) were forcibly interfering with the running of the buses by the plaintiffs on the diverted routes and were threatening to cancel the diverted routes. The defendants pleaded inter alia that the suit had become infructuous because the temporary diverted routes had already been cancelled on 20.05.2009 i.e. before the filing of the suit. The routes were modified/diverted on account of construction of over-bridge at Baldev Nagar, Ambala City, when plaintiffs made request for temporary modification of the route. The temporary diverted routes were withdrawn when the original route was opened. Officials of the department reported in September/October 2008 that with opening of fly-over at Baldev Nagar, buses can be plied on original route. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the C. R. No. 203 of 2010 (O&M) 3 case file. It is the own case of the plaintiffs that their route was temporarily diverted on account of construction of fly-over at Baldev Nagar and due to closure of original route near Air Force Station for heavy vehicles. Section 87 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short – the Act) makes provision for temporary permits to meet a particular temporary need or in some other exigencies. In the instant case, on account of closure of the original route, the plaintiffs were granted temporary permits for diverted routes. However, the temporary permits under Section 87 of the Act could not exceed four months at a time. Admittedly, the initial period of four months, since the sanction of the diverted routes, expired long back. Consequently, on the basis of temporary diversion of the route, the plaintiffs have no right to ply their buses on the diverted route. The temporary permits could not remain in force for more than four months and were never extended. On the other hand, the temporary permits stood withdrawn/ cancelled before the filing of the suit. The said cancellation has not been challenged in the suit. When the temporary permits do not exist, the plaintiffs have no right to ply their buses on the diverted routes. Learned counsel for the petitioners, relying on a judgment dated 07.09.1999 (Annexure A-6) passed by a Division Bench of this Court in C. W. P. No. 18627 of 1998 titled The National Co. Op. Transport Society Limited and others vs. The State of Haryana and others, contended that permits of the plaintiffs are permanent permits and the diverted route was temporary, but the same shall also be deemed to be permanent in view of the aforesaid judgment. The contention cannot be accepted. In the case of The National Co. Op. Transport Society Limited (supra), the petitioners had applied for variation of route permits under Section 80 of the Act. Section 80 of the Act provides for grant of permanent permits and variation therein. In the instant case, however, the C. R. No. 203 of 2010 (O&M) 4 plaintiffs were granted diverted routes under Section 87 of the Act to meet temporary need on account of construction of fly-over at Baldev Nagar. The facts in the case of The National Co. Op. Transport Society Limited (supra) were completely different and the said judgment is not applicable to the instant case. For the reasons recorded herein above, I find no illegality in the impugned judgment of the Appellate Court, so as to warrant interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. However, nothing observed herein above shall be construed to be as an expression of opinion on the merits of the suit. February 04, 2010 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE