( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, Madhya Pradesh State Road transport Corporation under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order (Annexure D) dated 12th July, 1973 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, sagar (respondent No. 1) and also the permit issued to the respondent No. 2 in pursuance of the said order.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a State Transport undertaking established under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. The petitioner is operating its stage carriages on Sagar Jabalpur via sanodha, Garhakota, Abhana, Jabera and Katangi under Scheme No. 9 approved under the provisions of Chapter IV-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). A portion of this route between Garhakota and Abhana has been allowed to be operated by private operators under the Scheme with a restriction not to pick up and set down passengers between the aforesaid portion.

( 3 ) THE respondent No. 2 applied on 26-6-1973 to the respondent No. 1 for grant of a temporary permit for the route Patharia-Jabalpur via Garhakota, Damoh, tejgarh, Tendukheda and Patan (Annexure C ). Before this application was moved by the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 had determined the scope for grant of a permanent stage carriage permit (one return trip daily) for the instant route vide its order dated 12th June 1973 (Annexure B ). With reference to the application of the respondent No. 2 for the grant of a temporary permit, a detailed note was prepared by the Secretary to the Authority which is Annex. D dated 28-6-1973. The Secretary put up the application of the respondent No. 2 with his note for consideration before the respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 vide its order dated 12-7-1973 having approved the note of the Secretary was satisfied that there existed a temporary need and granted a temporary permit in favour of the respondent No, 2 for a period of two months. This order was written under the note of the Secretary and as such that is also Annexure D. Thus, in pursuance of this order, the respondent No. 2 has been issued a temporary permit (Annexure E)for a period from 1-8-1973 to 30-9-1973. The petitioner being aggrieved by the temporary grant has come up before this Court for quashing of the same.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended before us that since the order does not show application of mind by the respondent No. 1 regarding determination of a particular temporary need and there being no finding to the effect also, the grant of a temporary permit in the present case has been without jurisdiction and as such is liable to be quashed. In support of this contention, learned counsel referred to the following decisions of this Court, Raipur Transport co. (P.) Ltd. v. Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur, 1966 MPLJ 605; Hotchand tekchand Bhatia v. Secy. , R. T. A. , Indore, Misc. Petn. No. 287 of 1970, D/- 29-81970 (Madh Pra) and Surguja Raigarh Roadways (P.) Ltd. v. Secy. , Regional transport Authority, Bilaspur, Misc. Petn. No. 663 of 1970, D/-28-1-1973 (Madh pra ). On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 contended that there is determination of a particular temporary need by the authority and as such the grant of a temporary permit was fully justified and needs no interference by this Court.

( 5 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of opinion that the petitioner's contention has no substance and as such must be rejected. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the note of the Secretary dated 28-6-1973 and the order of the Regional Transport Authority passed under the same note, both together would form a composite order for the purpose of grant of a temporary permit in the present case. If that is so, and rightly not disputed by the learned counsel, then it is difficult to accept the contention of the counsel. The particular temporary need has been