The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of a temporary permit, even if it serves as an extension of a pucca permit, has to be made by the Regional Transport Authority in whose region the route for which the temporary permit has been applied for lies.

1. Questions of some importance in motor vehicles law arise for consideration in these cases. A Regional Transport Authority grants a temporary permit for a route which lies in the region of another Authority. Can the grant be saved for the reasons that the stage carriage for which the temporary permit was granted was operating on a route in the region of the Authority on the basis of a pucca permit already granted by the Authority, the stage carriage can operate on the route for which the temporary permit was granted as a continuation of the route it was already operating and that when the routes covered by the pucca permit and the temporary permit are taken as a whole the major portion of the same lies in the region of the Authority which granted the temporary permit. The further question is whether the application for the temporary permit can be considered as an application to vary the conditions of a permit under S.57 (8) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for short the Act, and the grant of the temporary permit be saved as an extension of the permit even though the procedure insisted by S.57 of the Act for the grant of a permit was not followed by the Authority in making the impugned grant.

2. The petitioner in O. P. No. 5233 of 1981 is a stage carriage operator with two pucca permits on the routes Puduponnani-Kunnamkulam via Edappal and Kadavallur, and Puduponnani-Guruvayur via Naduvattorn, Kadavallur and Kunnamkulam. The 5th respondent is another operator having a pucca permit on Kadavallur-Trichur via Kunnamkulam. The 1st respondent-Regional Transport Authority, it seems, accepted a proposal to extend the 5th respondent's permit from Kadavallur to Edappal and granted a temporary permit for periods of 20 days and 4 months on the route Kadavallur to Edappal to operate as an extension of the pucca permit he was having on the route Kadavallur-Trichur. The 5th respondent again applied for a temporary permit on the route Kadavallur-Edappal as an extension of his route Kadavallur-Trichur. The matter was considered by the 1st respondent-Regional Transport Authority on 20-7-1981. The petitioner opposed the grant mainly on the ground that the Ist respondent has no jurisdiction to grant a temporary permit on the route Kadavallur-Edappal as the same is in the Malappuram District which is the region of the 3rd respondent-Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram. It was also contended that the 1st respondent has no power to extend or vary a pucca permit temporarily on an application submitted under S.62 of the Act. The 1st respondent ignored the petitioner's objections and granted the temporary permit to the 5th respondent. Ext, P-2 is the application for the temporary permit submitted by the 5th respondent in Form P.T.A. and Ext. P-1 is the covering letter. Ext. P-3 is the order making the grant. The petitioner challenged Ex. P-3 before 4th respondent-State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Ernakulam by Ext. P-4 appeal. The 4th respondent dismissed that appeal by Ext. P-5 judgment. It was under the above circumstances that the petitioner approached this Court with this original petition challenging Exts. P-3 and P-5.

3. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the 5th respondent. Along with the counter-affidavit Exts. R-1 to R-5 were produced. In the counter-affidavit it is stated: By Ext P-3 order, the 1st respondent his granted the successive issue of the temporary permit to do extended service from Kadavallur to Edappal in continuation of the existing pucca permit. The proposal to extend the route Kadavallur-Trichur to Edappal was notified under S 47(1) of the Act. The 5th respondent filed an application fora temporary permit to do extended service from Kadavallur to Edappal in continuation of the existing pucca permit from Trichur to Kadavallur. The proposal for extension and the petitioner's application for a temporary permit were considered and disposed of by the 1st respondent by Ext. R-2. It was in pursuance of Ext. R-2, t