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 decisio