( 1 ) THIS is a writ petition filed by petitioner Abdul Majid for issue of a writ of certiorari for the purpose of quashing the order dated 5-10-1972 passed by the secretary. State Transport Authority, Madhya Pradesh, in favour of respondent No. 4 of the inter-State route Mahoba-Jhansi.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the holder of a stage carriage permit for Jhansi-Mahoba route as nominee of Uttar Pradesh; while respondent No. 4 is holding a permit for mahoba-Jhansi route as nominee of Madhya Pradesh. They are operating their services on the basis of a reciprocal agreement entered into between the State of madhya Pradesh and the State of Uttar Pradesh. The permit of respondent No. 4 was valid upto 21-10-1972. He applied for grant of renewal of his permit on 26-61972 under Section 58 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to the State Transport Authority which had granted the said permit. No application for renewal of counter-signature of the permit was made either before the State Transport Authority or before the Regional Transport Authority. Jhansi (Uttar Pradesh ). Since the application for grant of renewal of the permit was not disposed of before the expiry of the permit. respondent No. 4 applied for grant of a temporary permit for 4 months under Section 62 (1) (d) of the Act before the state Transport Authority. Section 62 (11 (d) of the Act reads as under:

"section 62. Temporary permits.-- (1) A Regional Transport Authority may without following the procedure laid down in Section 57. grant permits, to be effective for a limited period not in any case to exceed four months, to authorise the use of a transport vehicle temporarily- (a)**** **** (b)**** **** (c)**** **** (d) pending decision on an application for the renewal of a permit; and may attach to any such permit any condition it thinks fit. . . . . . . . . " the Secretary, State Transport Authority, under his delegated power, granted a temporary permit in favour of respondent No. 4 for the route for the period 22-101972 to 21-2-1973 vide his order dated 5-10-1972.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that since respondent no. 4 failed to apply simultaneously for renewal of the counter-signature of his permit, his application for grant of renewal of the permit before the State transport Authority was not an application in the eye of law and during the pendency of such an application, he had no right to claim the grant of a temporary permit for the route under Section 62 (1) (d) of the Act. The act of the Secretary. State Transport Authority in granting the temporary permit under that provision was thus wholly without jurisdiction. Learned counsel for respondent No. 4 on the other hand, contended that his application for grant of renewal of his permit was a valid application in spite of the fact that he had not made an application for renewal of counter-signature of his permit, because, in view of the provisions of the proviso to subsection (3) of Section 63 of the Act, no application for renewal of counter-signature was necessary in the present case where the permit had been granted and held on the basis of a reciprocal agreement. The grant of temporary permit was in accordance with law and no error of jurisdiction had been committed by the authority granting it. ( 4 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for both parties, we are of opinion that the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no force and this petition must be dismissed.

( 5 ) BEFORE we proceed to decide the point raised, it is better to refer to the relevant sections of the Act. Section 46 of the Act deals with particulars which shall be contained in an application for stage carriage permit. Section 47 deals with matters which must be considered by the granting authority while considering such an application. Section 48 deals with the powers of the granting authority while granting a stage carriage permit. Section 57 relates to th