Fourth respondent applied for a temporary permit on the route alapuzha-andha karanazhi. Third respondent, who is the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority, dismissed the application on the ground that the 4th respondent is not the Owner of the vehicle offered in the application. 4th respondent preferred an appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal ('Appellate Tribunal' for short) against the order rejecting the application. The Appellate Tribunal by its judgment dated 27-9-1990 allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the third respondent and directed the third respondent to enquire whether the temporary need mentioned as harvesting and marketing of agricultural products is true and is fn existence now and if so to issue a temporary permit for 20 days without time clash with the existing operators, particularly the petitioner. Ext.P4 is the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal. Petitioner challenges ErtP4 in this original petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that under S.66(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') only an owner can apply for a temporary permit. The material words of S.66(1) reads thus: "No owner of