Transport authorities must decide pending temporary permit applications under Section 87(1)(c) within ten days.

The petitioners applied for temporary stage carriage permits for the routes Shahpur–Narsinghpur, Raipura–Katni, Bhajipani–Seoni, Chhindwara–Seoni, and Katni–Raipura and back.

Their applications remained undecided before Respondent No. 2, prompting the petition seeking a direction for their consideration, particularly under Section 87(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The State did not oppose the limited prayer for expeditious consideration.

Whether Respondent No. 2 should be directed to consider and decide the petitioners’ pending applications for temporary stage carriage permits under Section 87(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Whether such applications should be decided within the time prescribed by the departmental circular dated 4 June 2014.

The Court applied Section 87(1)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which empowers the Regional or State Transport Authority to grant a temporary permit, without following the procedure under Section 80, to meet a particular temporary need, for a limited period not exceeding four months.

The Court also relied on the Madhya Pradesh Transport Department circular dated 4 June 2014, which directs the transport authorities to decide applications for temporary permits within 10 days and applications for regular permits within 30 days, in accordance with law.

The petitioners’ applications for temporary permits were pending, and the State raised no objection to their consideration.

Since the relief sought was limited to a direction for administrative consideration, the Court did not adjudicate the petitioners’ entitlement to the permits.

It directed Respondent No. 2 to examine the pending applications in light of Section 87(1)(c) and the applicable legal provisions, while adhering to the stipulated period of 10 days under the departmental circular.

The Court clarified that it had expressed no opinion on the merits of the applications.

Until a permit was actually granted, the petitioners were not permitted to ply their vehicles.