G. R. BHATTACHARJEE. J. ( 1 ) BY my order dated 19. 4. 94 I directed the R. T. A. Midnapore to issue permanent permit to the petitioner on the concerned route within six weeks from the date of communication of the said order. No such permanent permit was, however, issued within the stipulated time in spite of my order. The petitioner then filed the present contempt application dated 19. 8. 94. ( 2 ) IT is, inter alia, submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that after service of the contempt application pursuant to the order of this court dated 21. 9. 94, the contemnor issued permanent permit on 26. 9. 94 but with an endorsement on the permit that the petitioner is allowed to ply the concerned hired vehicle for three months with effect from 27. 9. 94. This fact has been brought to the notice of the court by the petitioner by affirming a supplementary affidavit on 12th January, 1995. ( 3 ) WHEN the court directed for issuing a permanent permit, it was incumbent upon the R. T. A. to issue usual permit as granted in case of permanent permits for a period of five years, but by imposing a condition that the hired vehicle was allowed to ply only for three months, the effect of the purported permanent permit has been drastically curtailed and the court's direction for issuing permanent permit in favour of the petitioner virtually stands frustrated. Apart from the question why the permanent permit was not issued within the stipulated period, the very fact that the permanent permit was coupled with a condition that the hired vehicle was allowed to ply for a limited period of three months only instead of the usual period of five years prima facie constitutes deliberate violation of the court's order. ( 4 ) IT is submitted on behalf of the alleged contemner that no permanent permit can be granted for the full period against a hired vehicle. ( 4 ) IT is submitted on behalf of the alleged contemner that no permanent permit can be granted for the full period against a hired vehicle. On the other hand it is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that in view of the definition of the term "owner" as contained in Section 2 (30) of the Motor Vehicles Act, a leasse who is in possession of the vehicle under an agreement of lease is also an "owner" within the meaning of the term and therefore there is no bar for the leasse to get a permanent permit in his own name as owner of the vehicle where the lease is for five years and the lessee is in possession of the vehicle under the agreement. I find there is substance in the submission of the learned advocate for the petitioner. ( 5 ) IN the supplementary affidavit affirmed on 1st February, 1995 the petitioner has also annexed copies of certain permanent permits which were issued by the S. T. A. for five years against hired vehicles. It is not understood why the R. T. A. Midnapore has sought to make an interpretation which is not even supported by the acts of the S. T. A. , West Bengal in granting permanent permits for the full period of five years against hired vehicles. Since I find that the petitioner is entitled to a permanent permit for the full period covered by the lease as leasee answering the definition of "owner" and since I find that by practice also the S. T. A. has been issuing permanent permits for the full period against hired vehicles there is absolutely no reason why the purported permanent permit should be restricted only to three months on the ground that the concerned vehicle is a hired vehicle. ( 6 ) ACCORDINGLY, I direct the Secretary, R. T. A. Midnapore to delete the endorsement on the permit granted by the R. T. A. That 'the petitioner is allowed to ply the hired vehicle for three months only', so that the petitioner, in view of such deletion of the restriction term of the permit may ply the concerned hired vehicle for the full period covered by the said permanent permit, namely, a period of five years. ( 7 ) THE matter be listed on Thursday next for report of compliance. ( 7 ) THE matter be listed on Thursday next for report of compliance. The other steps to be taken on the contempt application will be decided on that date. ( 8 ) IT is needless to mention that within the aforesaid period of one week, the Secretary, R. T. A. shall issue permanent time table and fare chart to the petitioner, for the entire period. ( 9 ) THIS order will govern the case of the petitioners Shri Ajoy Rana and Smt. Rina Das in C. O. 4444 (W) of 1994, and the same be treated as on day's list with consent of the parties. ( 10 ) THE R. T. A. , Midnapore is directed to obtain the counter signature from the R. T. A. , Howrah and he shall issue necessary letter through the petitioners. Since the counter signature fees have already been deposited by the petitioner and accepted by the Secretary, R. T. A. , Midnapore, the R. T. A. , Midnapore is directed to issue necessary letter to the R. T. A. , Howrah through the petitioner so that necessary counter signature may be obtained from the R. T. A. , Howrah for the permanent permit in respect of all the petitioners. The learned Advocate for the petitioner is granted liberty to take gist of the order and communicate the same to the Secretary, R. T. A. , Midnapore who shall act thereon, and the same will be communicated to the R. T. A. , Midnapore by the petitioner by Monday next. Order accordingly.