( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 228 of the Constitution of India by Messrs. Bhumarg Yatayat (Registered), 431, Khatikan, Muzaffarnagar, through Uma Sharan (to be referred herein after us the petitioner), for the issue of a writ of certiorari or a like writ or direction to quash the resolution dated! the 6th/7th April, 1960, and also for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents, namely, the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut, and the Secretary of the regional Transport Authority Meerut, to forbear from giving effect to the said impugned resolution.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are not in controversy. What the respondents have pleaded in the counter-affidavit is to justify their action.

( 3 ) THE admitted facts of the present case are that Muzaffarnagar-Rohana-Charthawal route, about 15 miles long, was declared a B-class route under the U. P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1935, and in the beginning applications for permanent permits were invited and later for temporary permits; but no final orders were passed and in the end under resolution No. 49 dated the 6th/7th April, 1960, the Regional Transport Authority, Meerut, respondent No. 1, amalgamated the route, Muzaffarnagar-Rohana-Charthawal, with muzaffarnagar-Rohana-Deoband-Saharanpur route by temporarily extending the route, muzaffarnagar-Rohana-Deoband-Saharanpur, to Charthawal also. In other words, the motor vehicles plying on Muzaffarnagar-Saharanpur route were to ply on muzaffarnagar-Rohana-Charthawal route also. None of the operators of the muzaffarnagar-Saharanpur route had applied for permanent Or temporary permits on the muzaffarnagar-Rohana-Charthawal route and the objection that they had made to the ereation of this new route had been rejected.

( 4 ) THE only point for consideration is if the Regional Transport Authority had the power to temporarily extend the route without calling for applications or compliance of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act.

( 5 ) SECTION 57 (8) of the Motor Vehicles Act makes a provision for the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area in a permit (other than a temporary permit) and it is laid down therein that an application for the inclusion of a new route etc. , shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit. The inclusion of a new route or a new area in the permit amounts to extension of the route. Consequently, if the route of a permit other than a temporary permit has to be extended, the provisions of Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act must be complied with. In the motor Vehicles Act there is no provision for the temporary extension of the route of a permit; but such temporary extensions Can be treated at par with temporary permits. Under Section 57 (8) an application for extension of the route is to be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit and consequently when the route is being extended temporarily the application should, as far as the temporary extension is concered, be treated as an application for temporary permit and in such circumstances, the provisions of See. 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act shall become applicable.

( 6 ) UNDER Section 62 the Regional Transport Authority can, without following the procedure laid down in Section 57, grant temporary permits for a period not exceeding four months to authorize the use of a transport vehicle temporarily for the convenience of passengers on special occasions or for the purposes of a seasonal business or to meet a particular temporary need or pending decision of an application for the renewal of a permit. The Regional Transport Authority had already taken a decision for the creation of a new Muzaffarnagar-Rohana-Charthawal route and consequently, the need for running transport vehicles on this route, could not be for temporary purposes detailed in the first three clauses of Section 62 of the Act. No application for renewal of a permit was pending; in other words, none of the ingredients of Se