Shaffique, J.

1. Writ Appeal No.1943 of 2012 is filed by the second respondent in W.P.(C) No.9587 of 2012. The writ petition is filed by the second respondent herein seeking to quash Ext.P3 an order issued by the Secretary Regional Transport Authority rejecting an application for temporary permit submitted by the writ petitioner with reference to a route Vattaparambu- Angamaly- Kanakkankadavu, in the vacant timings of another vehicle. It is found that the route portion from Elavoor kavala- Angamaly is 2.6 Km, Angamaly town - Angamaly-Telk Junction is 3 kms and Athani – Kapola Junction is 0.4 kms which is an objectionable overlapping into the notified route Ernakulam - Thrissur which is in violation of G.O(P)42/2009/Trans. dated 14/07/2009. According to the writ petitioner only a portion of the proposed route overlaps a notified route and it is therefore incumbent on the first respondent to issue temporary permit under the proviso to Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act till such time as the KSRTC commences service on the said route. The petitioner also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Bairagarh, Bhopal v B.P. Upadhyava and others (AIR 1966 SC 156). In that case a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court while considering the scope of Section 62(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 which permitted the Regional Transport Authority to grant temporary permit "to meet a particular temporary need" held that the said clause should not be given any special or restricted meaning. It is further held that

"There is no antithesis between a particular temporary need and a permanent need and it is manifest that these two kinds of need may coexist on a particular route. If, therefore, the Regional Transport Authority considered that, in the circumstances of the case, there was a particular temporary need, and granted a temporary permit to the appellant, the action of the Regional Transport Authority cannot be challenged as legally invalid. Reference may be made, in this connection, to Section 62(d) which contemplates that temporary permits may be granted to authorise the use of a transport vehicle temporarily pending decision on an application for the renewal of a permit. This subsection, therefore, contemplates that there may exist a temporary need for transport facilities on a particular route even in case of permanent need for such facilities. We are accordingly of opinion that the Regional Transport Authority was right as a matter of law in granting a temporary permit to the appellant under Section 62(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act in the circumstances of this case and the view expressed by the High Court is not correct."

2. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order relied upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this court in K.S.R.T.C. v R.T.O Ernakulam (1997 (2) KLT 330). Reference is made to paragraph 8 of the said judgment which reads as under:

"However, we have found that the Corporation has not plied sufficient number of stage carriages in all the nationalised routes during the last 25 to 30 years. Proviso to S.104 of the M.V.Act, 1988 lays down that where no application for a permit has been made by the State Transport undertaking in respect of any notified area or notified route in pursuance of an approved scheme, the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, may grant temporary permit to any person in respect of such notified area or notified route subject to the condition that such permit shall cease to be effective on the issue of a permit to the State Transport Undertaking in respect of that area or route. Thus, the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority are not totally forbidden to grant temporary permits to private operators to ply their stage carriages in the notified routes if no application for a permit has been made by the State Transport undertaking namely the petitioner herein in respe