R. Rajendra Babu, J.

The question for consideration is whether there can be a temporary variation of the regular permit. Petitioner, who is operating her stage carriage bearing Reg. No. 860 Sheeba y. The Regional Transport Authority (R. Rajendra Babu, J. ) 2002 (2) KRD 6615 on the route Medical College Hospital - Meenchanda, filed this Original Petition for quashing Ext. P2 proceedings of the R. T. A., Kozhikode, dated 14th September, 2001 granting temporary variation to the third respondent in respect of his stage carriage bearing Reg. No. KRD 7738 operating on the route Railway Station-Medical College Hospital - Feroke. The third respondent filed an application for the grant of temporary variation by providing an additional trip, Medical College Hospital-City via Malapparamba. That was allowed by the R. T. A. by Ext. P2 proceedings. The above order is under challenge.

2. The third respondent filed a counter stating that he was operating his stage carriage bearing Reg. No. KRD 7738 on regular permit on the route Railway Station -Medical College Hospital- Feroke via Malapparamba and Civil Station, which was valid upto 18th February 2004. The above service would reach the Medical College Hospital at 5.44 p. m. and thereafter would leave from Medical College Hospital towards Feroke only at 7.05 p. m. The stage carriage had to be unnecessarily detained for one hour and 21 minutes at Medical College Hospital during the peak hours and hence the third respondent filed an application for the grant of four months temporary permit for utilising the above vacant timing without affecting the regular operation so as to take an additional trip from Medical College Hospital at 6. 03 p. m. and to arrive back Medical College Hospital at 7.03 p. m. retaining the existing timings and after necessary enquiry the above application was allowed. The grant of temporary permit was advantageous to the travelling public and as such the above order was in accordance with law and hence cannot be interfered with.

3. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the third respondent and the learned Government Pleader.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ext. P2 was an order granting temporary variation, of a regular permit and there was no provision of law for granting any temporary variation and as such Ext. P2 order granting temporary variation was illegal and was liable to be quashed. The learned Counsel for the third respondent submitted that it was not the grant of temporary variation of regular permit, but the third respondent filed an application for the grant of temporary permit for four months for operating a trip between Medical College Hospital and City, as there was vacant time as per the timings issued in respect of the regular permit and as that was advantageous to the travelling public, the same was allowed. The learned Counsel for the third respondent relied on the decision of this Court in Balakrlshna Travels v. R.T.O. Malappuram, 1982 KLT 752, wherein it was held that a temporary permit also can be granted while the vehicle was being operated on the strength of a regular permit, if the route covered by both permits are continuous. There it was held

"The position will not be different in the case of a temporary permit by way of extension of an existing permit as the route on which the vehicle is proposed to be used will not include the route on which it was already used as per the existing permit. Temporary permit is for the new route on which it is proposed to use the vehicle. The grant of this permit will not in any way affect the continuance of the route the vehicle was already operating on the basis of the pucca permit. The effect of the grant is that the vehicle will operate on two routes, one on the basis of the pucca permit and the other on the basis of the temporary permit. What S.62 of the Act which governs the grant of temporary permits insists is only that the time consuming procedure laid down in S.5