The central legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of temporary permits under S.62 (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, requires the existence of a 'particular temporary need', which was not met in this case.

1. The petitioner questions the validity of four temporary permits issued by the 1st respondent (Secretary, Regional Transport Board, Quilon) to the 2nd respondent (Director, State Transport, Department, Trivandrum) under S.62 (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, Two of the permits are in respect of the route, Chenganoore-Alleppy, and the other two are in respect of the route, Thiruvella-Alleppy.

2. The circumstances under which the four temporary permits were issued to the 2nd respondent are detailed by him as follows in his affidavit dated the 23rd October 1957:

"The Revenue District of Alleppey started functioning as from 17-8-1957 under Notification No. B. 2 -1670/57/RD dated 13-8-1957. The Taluks of Thiruvella and Chengannoore among others which originally formed part of the District of Quilon were included in the Alleppey District as underline aforesaid notification. There was, in consequence, a large demand from the public of these Taluks that direct transport facilities be afforded to them so as to enable them to get to the headquarters of the District for transacting various businesses. There was no through bus services connecting Alleppey on the one side and Chengannore and Thiruvella on the other. The grant of pucca permanent permits necessarily takes time. About four or five months will be required for the authorities to get through all the formalities prescribed by the Statute before pucca permits are granted. Much the same time will be necessary for the finalisation of a scheme as under Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1956. In the circumstances and to meet the particular temporary need that could not otherwise be met, the State Transport Department applied to the 1st respondent for temporary permits under S.62 of the Statute. The said application was made on 3-9-1957. In the covering letter which was sent along with the application for the temporary permits, mention was made by this respondent that steps were being taken for the Submission of a scheme to the Government as per Chapter IV-A of the Statute. The scheme was actually submitted to the Government on 26-9-1957 and is still pending with the Government. It is submitted that in the circumstances the 1st respondent was well within jurisdiction in issuing temporary permits to the 2nd respondent. The situation arising out of the said aforesaid circumstances is such as to create a need which is both particular and temporary. It is obvious that until either permanent pucca permits are issued or the scheme under the Chapter IV-A is finalised the needs of the public could not be met other wise than by the issue of temporary permits".

3. S.62 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (as amended up-to-date) is in the following terms:

"A Regional Transport Authority may without following the procedure laid down in S.57, grant permits, to be effective for a limited period not in any case to exceed four months, to authorise the use of a transport vehicle temporarily

(a) for the conveyance of passengers on special occasions such as to and from fairs and religious gatherings, or -

(b) for the purposes of a seasonal business, or

(c) to meet a particular temporary need, or

(d) pending decision on an application for the renewal of a permit; and may attach to any such permit any condition it thinks fit:

Provided that a temporary permit under this section shall, in no case, be granted in respect of any route or area specified in an application for the grant of a new permit under S.46 or S.54 during the pendency of the application;

Provided further that a temporary permit under this section shall, in no case, be granted more than once in respect of any route or area specified in an application for the renewal of a permit during the pendency of such application for renewal".

It is common ground that clauses (a), (b) and (d) are not attracted and that the only question for consideration is whether the circumstances which induced the grant of the permits spell "a particular tempo