A temporary permit can be granted only if the permit is required for the purpose or reason mentioned from (a) to (d) in Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

D.P. Gupta, J.-The case was fixed for orders on stay application today, but on the request of the learned Counsel for the parties the main writ petition was taken up for hearing.

2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

3. Atemporary permit was granted to the respondent No. 3 on Ajmer-Pisangan via Pushkar, Nand, Picholia route by the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur by its order dated December 24, 1974. A revision filed by the petitioner, who is the existing operator of the aforesaid route, before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur was dismissed. In the present writ petition challenging the grant of the aforesaid temporary permit to the respondent No. 3, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Transport Authorities did not come to the conclusion that there was a particular temporary need within the meaning of Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act’ and as such the grant of a temporary permit to the respondent No. 3 was invalid and void. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 on the other hand argued that a temporary need may co-exist with permanent need and placed reliance on the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in The Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Batragraph, Bhopal (M P.) vs. B. P. Upadhyaya, AIR 1966 SC 156. Learned Counsel for the petitioner however submitted that that may be so, but it is not necessary in each and every case where a vacancy existed that a temporary need also arose simultaneously. He placed reliance on Raipur Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur AIR 1967 Madh Pra 141 in support of his submission. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that in the application for the grant of a temporary permit the respondent No. 3 stated in column No. 4 that the temporary permit was desired for the purpose of’to carry regular service’, which could not be termed as a temporary need within the meaning of Section 62 of the Act. Reliance has been placed in support of this contention, upon the decision of this Court in Mohammed Yunus vs. Regional Transport Authority (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1869 of 1970 decided on October 26, 1970 (Raj) and an unreported judgment of the Supreme Court in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs.

K. Venkataramireddy 1970 UJ (SC) 408.

4. I have considered the rival contentions. From a perusal of the order of the Regional Transport Authority it clearly emerges that the only reason assigned by it for the grant of a temporary permit to the Respondent No. 3 was that there was a vacancy of one permit on the route. From the mere fact that a vacancy existed on the route, the Regional Transport Authority arrived at the conclusion that along with the permanent need there was also a temporary need, which was required to be filled in by the grant of a temporary permit. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal also expressed the same opinion and observed that a temporary need could be presumed to exist in the circumstances of the case. It was necessary before a temporary permit could have been granted that the Regional Transport Authority should have come to a firm conclusion that a temporary need within the meaning of one of the Clauses (a) to (d) of Section 62 (1) of the Act existed. The mere existence of a permanent need does not in each and every case necessarily lead to the conclusion that a temporary need also simultaneously exists on a route, although there is no doubt that a temporary need may also co-exist along with a permanent need, provided the circumstances lead to that conclusion as held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in The Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Bairagarh, Bhopal case AIR 1966 SC 156. It is difficult to conceive that a temporary permit may be granted only for the purpose of enabling a vehicle to ply in rotation with another vehicle already plying on a non-temporary pe