( 1 ) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been directed by the petitioner. Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, against the order dated 25-6-1973 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Sagar (respondent no. 1) granting a temporary permit in favour of Gulabchand Jain (respondent No. 3 ).

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are that earlier the respondent No. 1 had granted a temporary permit vide its order dated 25-4-1973 in favour of the respondent No. 3 for the route Sagar, Jabalpur via Rehli, Garhakota, Abhana, Teigarh and tendukheda. This permit was valid for a period of one month with the expiry date as 25-6-1973. As it appears from the record that some persons had applied for grant of new regular permanent stage-carriage permit for the same route and those applications after being received by the respondent No. 1 had been sent for publication in the M. P. Rajpatra. In the meanwhile since the validity of the temporary grant was expiring, the respondent No. 3 again and one more person, nemichand Jain, applied for the grant of a temporary permit for the same route. Both the applicants desired the temporary grant for a period of four months in their respective applications. The Regional Transport Authority granted temporary permit again to the respondent No. 3 for a period of two months with effect from 27-6-1973 overruling the objection of the petitioner against the grant. The impugned order is Annexure E. Three grounds have been stated in the said order for the temporary grant which are as under:- (i) The need of one additional service for Sagar, Jabalpur and vice versa route has been established by the grant of first temporary permit that too on payment of P/tax at 70% rate, at convenient hours. (ii) There had been no interference from the High Court of M. P. , jabalpur, on a writ petition having been filed by the M. P. S. R. T. C. along with a request for interim stay as intimated by the grantee of temporary permit. (iii) Applications which have been made suo motu for grant of permanent permit for additional service have been sent for publication in the M. P. Rajpatra. The petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned order (Annexure E) has come up in the present petition before this Court.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of the respondent No. 1 is without jurisdiction inasmuch as the same has been passed in contravention of First Proviso to Section 62 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and also that the three reasons stated in the order for the temporary grant do not justify a particular temporary need under section 62 (1) (c ). On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 contended that the impugned order is valid and requires no interference. '

( 4 ) HAVING heard learned counsel of the parties, we are of the opinion that this petition must be allowed. It will be necessary to reproduce the First Provisc to section 62 (1) of the Act for the appreciation of the first submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner which reads as under:-

" provided that a temporary permit under this section shall, in no case, be granted in respect of any route or area specified in an application for the grant of a new permit under Section 46 or section 54 during the pendency of the application. "

A plain reading of the aforesaid proviso makes it clear that a Regional Transport authority has no jurisdiction to grant a temporary permit for a route for which application or applications for grant of stage carriage permit axe pending before the same authority. The words "during the pendency of the application" in the proviso have reference to a period of time earlier to the disposal of the application by the authority. In pur opinion, pendency is the state or condition of being undecided and it would cover the period from the time the applications for the grant of permanent permit under Section 46 of the Ac