S. K. CHAWLA, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges an order of State Transport Appellate Tribunal (Annex. P-9), granting a stage carriage permit to respondent No. 3 Madanlal Chhabra. ( 2 ) THE petitioner Sushil Bairagi as also respondent No. 3 Madanlal Chhabra are bus operators. The latter had made an application, in addition to applications by some others for grant of a stage carriage permit over route Antri to Neemach. R. T. A. Ujjain by order dated 10-4-92 (Annex. P-3) had granted that permit to one Prabhulal Patidar, rejecting the applications of others, including that of respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 carried an appeal to State Transport Appellate Tribunal (for short S. T. A. T. ). The S. T. A. T. by the order dated 23-7-1992 (Annex. P-9) held the said appeal to be not maintainable against grant in favour of Prabhulal Patidar. The appeal was however partly allowed by that order by granting a stage carriage permit also to respondent No. 3. ( 3 ) THE petitioner's case in this petition is that he holds a stage carriage permit over route Chokadi to Neemuch, which has common portion between - Manasa to Neemuch with the route Antri to Neemuch for which a stage carriage permit has been granted to respondent No. 3 by the impugned order of the S. T. A. T. (Annex. P-9 ). The impugned order is challenged on the ground that respondent No. 3 already held 4 stage carriage permits and one temporary permit, making in all 5 stage carriage permits. The grant of further stage carriage permit by the impugned order amounted to grant of a sixth stage carriage permit to him, which was violation of ceiling fixed by Section 71 (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, providing that stage carriage permits exceedings 5 to an individual and exceeding 10 to a company shall not be granted. The challenge is also made on the ground that S. T. A. T. by impugned order had granted timings with respect to respondent No. 3's permit which were just identical with the 'timings of the petitioner's service over the common route and that was done without giving any hearing to the petitioner. The challenge is also made on the ground that S. T. A. T. by impugned order had granted timings with respect to respondent No. 3's permit which were just identical with the 'timings of the petitioner's service over the common route and that was done without giving any hearing to the petitioner. ( 4 ) IN the return filed by respondent No. 3, his defence is that of the four stage carriage permits held by him, the one over route Deorikhawasa-Baman Bardi was surrendered by him on 13-9-1991, i. e. , much before the orders of the R. T. A. or the S. T. A. T. were passed. A communication dated 9-9-92 from Secretary, R. T. A. Ujjain (Annex. Y) has also been filed stating that the said permit had been cancelled by R. T. A. Ujjain by order dated 5-9-92. It is further contended that although besides holding the aforesaid stage carriage permits, he held a temporary permit over route Kundala-Jawad and still holds that temporary permit, the said temporary permit cannot be taken into account while computing the number of stage carriage permits for which ceiling is fixed by Section 71 (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. If surrendered stage carriage permit and temporary permit are ignored as they should according to respondent No. 3 the grant of permit by the impugned order of the S. T. A. T. , amounted to the grant of 4th stage carriage permit to him and was hence very much within the ceiling of five permits. It was also contended that petitioner was granted a hearing by S. T. A. T. with respect to the timings, before the impugned order was passed. Moreover, the S. T. A. T. in the impugned order had made it clear that respondent No. 3 had been given only provisional time-table for a period of four months and if any objections are in future received for which there is still time, the same shall be heard and suitable changes in time-table, if necessary, made by the R. T. A. It was also contended that there was no clash of timings over the common route between the two services of the petitioner and respondent No. 3. Petitioner had suppressed the fact that he had been given modified timings for his own permit, which had widened the gap between the timings of the two services over the common route. The petitioner's petition, it was also contended, deserved to be dismissed on a short ground that he had suppressed correct information about timings of his own service and had attempted to misguide the Court. ( 5 ) THE important question that falls for decision in this petition is if by impugned order dated 23-7-92 (Annexure P-9), the S. T. A. T. had granted a stage carriage permit to respondent No. 3, Madanlal Chhabra, in excess of the ceiling fixed by Section 71 (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is not disputed that respondent No. 3 has the status of an 'individual' and is not 'a company' within the meaning of the Explanation given in Section 71 ibid. As such, the ceiling of 5 stage carriage permits will be applicable to respondent No. 3 and not the ceiling of 10 stage carriage permits, which applies to a company. The provision of Section 71 (4) of the Act which lays down the ceiling may be reproduced here :-"71 (4 ). A Regional Transport Authority shall not grant more than five stage carriage permits to any individual or more than ten stage carriage permits to any company (not being a State Transport Undertaking ). It will be seen from the above provision that mandate fixing the ceiling is directed to Regional Transport Authority. But the mandate will indisputably apply to S. T. A. T. , which purported to act as an Appellate Authority of R. T. A. while passing the impugned order. The question for decision may be couched in another form; namely, whether grant of stage carriage permit by the impugned order (Annex. P-9) was grant of a sixth stage carriage permit to respondent No. 3. If that was so, the grant being in excess of the ceiling deserves to be quashed. ( 6 ) IT is undisputed fact that respondent No. 3 held a temporary permit over route Kundala Jawad, when the S. T. A. T. passed the impugned order in appeal granting a stage carriage permit to him. If that was so, the grant being in excess of the ceiling deserves to be quashed. ( 6 ) IT is undisputed fact that respondent No. 3 held a temporary permit over route Kundala Jawad, when the S. T. A. T. passed the impugned order in appeal granting a stage carriage permit to him. The S. T. A. T. took into account that temporary permit while calculating the number of stage carriage permits held by respondent No. 3, but the S. T. A. T. also held that one of the four stage carriage permits held by respondent No. 3, had already been surrendered by him. Hence the S. T. A. T. held that respondent No. 3 held 3 stage carriage permits plus one temporary permit, making in all 4 stage carriage permits on the date of its order. The S. T. A. T. further held that grant of further stage carriage permit to respondent No. 3 by its impugned order was grant of 5th stage carriage permit, which we the maximum permissible under the law. 6-A. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 contended that S. T. A. T. was wrong in taking into account temporary permit while computing the number of stage carriage permits held by respondent No. 3. It was argued that on the basis of. . . . . . . . . . duration, permits under the Act could be divided into 2 categories : (1) temporary permits and (2) non-temporary or regular permits. Sections 70, 71 and 72 dealt with non-temporary (Regular) permits and Section 87 dealt with temporary permits. Section 71 (4), being part of Section 71, did not relate to temporary permits at all. On this basis, it was argued that provision with regard to ceiling contained in Section 71 (4) is not applicable to temporary permits. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that temporary permit, albeit of a short duration, is nevertheless a stage carriage permit. The ceiling contained in Section 71 (4) applied to stage carriage permits and hence it applied also to temporary permits. ( 7 ) A look at the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, relating to permits would show that a transport vehicle needs permit for its use in a public place. (See Section 66 ibid ). The ceiling contained in Section 71 (4) applied to stage carriage permits and hence it applied also to temporary permits. ( 7 ) A look at the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, relating to permits would show that a transport vehicle needs permit for its use in a public place. (See Section 66 ibid ). An exception is made in favour of an educational institution bus which is separately categorised as transport vehicle in the definition clause in Section 2 (47) of the Act. With respect to an educational institution bus, a provision has been made excepting it from the requirement of a permit if it fulfills certain conditions (See clause (h) of Section 66 (3) of the Act ). Sub-Section (3) of Section 66 lists all kinds of transport vehicles, which do not need a permit. ( 8 ) EIGHT kinds of permits are recognised. They are :- (1) Stage carriage permit granted under Section 72. (2) Contract carriage permit granted under Section 74. (3) Private service vehicle permit granted under Section 76. (4) Goods carriage permit granted under Section 79. (5) Temporary permit granted under Section 87. (6) Special permit granted under Section 88. (7) Tourist Vehicle permit granted under Section 88 (9 ). (8) National permit granted under Section 88 (12) of the Act. It may be mentioned that main permits are four : namely, Stage-carriage permit, Contract-carriage permit, Private-service vehicle permit and Goods carriage permit. The first two permits are for carriage of passage's for hire or reward. The third kind of permit is for carriage of persons in connection with trade or business carried on by the owner and otherwise than for hire or reward. The fourth kind of permit is for carriage of goods. The sixth kind of permit viz. , Special permit is in relation to a vehicle already covered by Stage carriage permit or Contract-carriage permit or under Tourist vehicle permit. The special permit is valid in any other region or State without counter-signature. The Seventh kind of permit; namely, Tourist-vehicle permit is a kind of Contract-carriage permit which is valid without counter-signature for the whole of India or in contiguous States not less than three mentioned in the permit. The eighth kind of permit; namely, National-permit is a kind of Inter-State Goods-carriage permit valid without counter-signature. The Seventh kind of permit; namely, Tourist-vehicle permit is a kind of Contract-carriage permit which is valid without counter-signature for the whole of India or in contiguous States not less than three mentioned in the permit. The eighth kind of permit; namely, National-permit is a kind of Inter-State Goods-carriage permit valid without counter-signature. With respect to fifth kind of permit, namely, temporary permit, what needs to be noted at present is that it is not a temporary Stage-carriage permit but simply a temporary permit. ( 9 ) CEILING has been fixed with respect to three-kinds of permits only. First, ceiling has been fixed with respect to stage-carriage permits under Section 71 (4) laying down that not more than 5 stage carriage-permits to an individual and not more than 10 stage-carriage permits to a company shall be granted. Secondly, ceiling has been fixed with respect to tourist vehicles permit in clause (a) of Sub-Section (10) of Section 88, laying down that such permits not exceeding 10 to an individual and not exceeding 20 to a Company shall be granted. Thirdly, ceiling has been fixed with respect to National permits in sub-clause (2) of Sub-Section (13) of Section 88 laying down that not more than 5 national permits to an individual and not more than 10 to a Company shall be granted. ( 10 ) THE point that deserves to be noted here is that expression used in describing the first kind of permit for which an application is made u/s. 70 and which is granted u/s. 72 of the Act, are the words, "stage-carriage permit". Although it is usual to call such permit as a "regular stage-carriage permit" but the Act itself uses no such appellation as "regular". The appellation "regular" is likely to create a confusion by giving an impression that while stage carriage permit issued under S. 72 is a regular stage-carriage permit, there is also another kind of stage-carriage permit, namely, a 'temporary stage-carriage permit' or 'temporary permit' under S. 87. The Act, therefore, scrupulously avoids the use of the word, "regular" for stage-carriage permits. ( 11 ) COMING to temporary permits granted under S. 87 of the Act, they are granted with quick despatch without following the procedure given in S. 80, which was more elaborate under the Act of 1939 in S. 57, if one or more grounds mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) exist. ( 11 ) COMING to temporary permits granted under S. 87 of the Act, they are granted with quick despatch without following the procedure given in S. 80, which was more elaborate under the Act of 1939 in S. 57, if one or more grounds mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) exist. The normal maximum life of such permit is 4 months. A temporary permit, it deserves to be noticed, is not a species or a kind of stage-carriage permit. A perusal of S. 87 would show that it contains no limitation that it may be granted only with respect to a stage-carriage. It may be granted even with respect to a contract-carriage. In fact, under clause (d) of that provision, it may be granted with respect to any kind of vehicle pending decision on an application for renewal of a permit. The proviso contained in S. 87 makes an express provision that if it is granted with respect to a goods carriage, its maximum life may be of one year unlike the normal maximum life of 4 months. So it is wrong to consider a temporary permit as a species or a kind of stage-carriage permit. If that be so, it is also wrong to take it into account as a stage-carriage permit for consideration of ceiling of stage-carriage permits given in S. 71 (4) of the Act. ( 12 ) THE object underlying the provision of ceiling with respect to stage-carriage permits contained in S. 71 (4) appears to be to curb monopoly of private operators with respect to plying of stage-carriages. The law does not want that a private operator acting as an individual should be granted more than 5 or acting as a company should be granted more than 10 stage-carriage permits. No monopoly is created by obtaining of temporary permits which are of short duration's. It may be argued that a private bus-operator might try to create monopoly by obtaining a larger number of temporary permits for his vehicles because it is a known fact that temporary permits are often successively granted to become as good as regular stage-carriage permits. This argument is based on an a priori assumption that a bus-operator would invest huge sums on vehicles only to ply them on temporary permits and further that temporary permits will go on getting successively granted to him as long as he wished. This argument is based on an a priori assumption that a bus-operator would invest huge sums on vehicles only to ply them on temporary permits and further that temporary permits will go on getting successively granted to him as long as he wished. This is not a just assumption. If a temporary permit is wrongly granted without proper ground or it is wrongly successively granted, the grant may be got quashed by another operator. It is wrong to think that grant of temporary permits by itself might lead to creation of monopoly. ( 13 ) TO conclude, we are of the view that considering the fact that a temporary permit is not a species or a kind of stage-carriage permit and also the object underlying the provision of ceiling contained in S. 71 (4), a temporary permit should not be taken into account while computing the number of stage carriage permits for which ceiling is fixed in S. 71 (4) of the Act. ( 14 ) ON the above view, respondent No. 3 held at the crucial time when the STAT passed the impugned order, four stage-carriage permits including the one said to have been surrendered. One temporary permit which the respondent No. 3 held at that time could not have been taken into account for consideration of the ceiling. The grant of additional stage-carriage permit vide the impugned order (Annexure P-9), in the circumstances, amounted to grant of fifth stage-carriage permit and therefore was within the ceiling prescribed. For these reasons, it is not necessary to decide the controversy if one of the stage carriage permits was really surrendered on 13-9-91, when respondent No. 3 is said to have made an application. (Annex. R-1) to A. R. T. O. Mandsaur, which was not the authority which had granted the permit and was therefore not the authority which could have cancelled that permit upon surrender, or whether it was really surrendered on 5-9-92. when R. T. O. Ujjain, who had granted the permit, actually cancelled it pursuant to surrender, vide Annex. Y. If surrender is held to be effective from the latter date i. e. , 5-9-92, then the said permit must be held to be in existence on the crucial date, i. e. , on 23-7-92, when additional grant of permit was made by S. T. A. T. by the impugned order. Y. If surrender is held to be effective from the latter date i. e. , 5-9-92, then the said permit must be held to be in existence on the crucial date, i. e. , on 23-7-92, when additional grant of permit was made by S. T. A. T. by the impugned order. But even taking into consideration the surrendered permit to be in existence on the crucial date, the grant of additional permit by the impugned order was only grant of 5th permit and within the ceiling limit. ( 15 ) IT is unfortunate that learned Presiding Officer of S. T. A. T. in the impugned order did not even so much as refer to the application (Annex. P-6) and affidavit (Annex. F-7) of Prabhulal Patidar, who was a party in the appeal before the S. T. A. T. , averring that the alleged surrendered stage carriage permit was still in existence, but chose to refer to an alleged affidavit of Mandanlal Chhabra (respondent No. 3 herein) said to be filed, not in the record of S. T. A. T. but in R. T. A. 's record stating that he had surrendered his permit. That gave a cause to the petitioner's counsel to complain that the impugned order was not an unbiased one. The challenge however to the impugned order based on alleged violation of ceiling provided in S. 71 (4) of the Act must fail. ( 16 ) WITH regard to further challenge to the impugned order on the ground that S. T. A. T. had granted "just identical timings" over the common route to respondent No. 3, it is sufficient to observe that the timings fixed by the S. T. A. T. in the impugned order are only provisional and the petitioner can avail of hearing before the concerned R. T. A. to get the timings of respondent No. 3's permit modified. ( 17 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, there is no force in this petition. The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed. .