G. M. LODHA, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition should fail as it fails to satisfy the prerequisite condition of substantial Injury or substantial failure of justice to petitioner under Article 226 (1) (b) and (c) of the Constitution.

( 2 ) THE principal point raised by Mr. Mehta is that a temporary Bus permit has been granted to respondent No. 2, Madan Lal on Ramganj-Mandi Rawat-bhata route where an application for non-temporary permit is already pending. Mr. Mehta submits that it is well established law that a temporary permit cannot be granted on a route where applications for grant of non-temporary permits, were invited and the same are pending.

( 3 ) MR. Mehta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has further contended that the grant of permit is, therefore, without jurisdiction and illegal.

( 4 ) IT was further submitted that the non-mention of temporary purpose in the application and the order also makes it illegal because no temporary permit can be granted for a regular service.

( 5 ) I may agree with the legal proposition enunciated by Mr. Mehta, but in view of the view, which I am taking on other preliminary point, it is not necessary to consider them much less t