Regional Transport Authority must decide temporary stage carriage permit applications within ten days per statutory guidelines.

The petitioner, Mahesh Kumar Sahu, applied to the Regional Transport Authority (Respondent No. 2) for the grant of a temporary stage carriage permit for the route Narsingpur to Mandla via Mugwani, Lakhnadon, Kahani, Ghansor, Pahadi, and Bhilai for his vehicle bearing registration No. MP-49-ZE-1559.

Despite filing the application, no decision was taken by the authority. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to compel Respondent No. 2 to decide the application within a specified timeframe, similar to orders passed in identical litigation.

Whether the respondent authority is mandated to decide applications for temporary stage carriage permits within a specific timeframe under the Motor Vehicles Act and state circulars.

Section 87(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which empowers the Regional Transport Authority to grant temporary permits for a limited period (not exceeding four months) to meet particular temporary needs without following the standard procedure laid down in Section 80.

Circular dated 04.06.2014 issued by the Parivahan Vibhag Mantralaya, Government of Madhya Pradesh, which prescribes a mandatory 10-day period for the disposal of applications for temporary permits.

The court observed that the petitioner’s application for a temporary permit remained pending despite the statutory framework and executive instructions governing such grants.

By citing the Circular dated 04.06.2014, the court noted that the state government has already established a timeline of 10 days for deciding temporary permit applications to ensure administrative efficiency.

Since the State counsel expressed no objection to a time-bound direction, the court found it unnecessary to adjudicate on the merits of the application itself. Instead, it focused on the procedural obligation of the authority to act within the prescribed period under Section 87 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

The court clarified that the petitioner is prohibited from plying the vehicle until the permit is officially granted and maintained that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.