( 1. ) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India raises the question about validity of a temporary permit granted under section 62 (1) (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the act) in favour of the respondent No. 2 by the respondent No. 1, the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur, for the route, Bilaspur to Korba via Katghora for 4 months which is valid upto 14-8-1984. The petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 11-4-1984 contained in Annexure B, passed by the Regional Transport Authority, respondent No, 1 and also the permit, Annexure-C, issued to the respondent no. 2 in pursuance of the said order.

( 2. ) FACTS leading to this case are that the petitioner is holding regular permits for the route, Bilaspur to Katghora and Katghora to Korba on the following timings: bilaspur Katghora dep. 2. 30 P. M. Arr. 4. 50 P. M.

Katghora. . . Korba dept. 5. 00 P. M. Arr. 6. 30 P. M. The respondent No. 2 applied for grant of temporary permit for four months for the route, Bilaspur to Korba via Katghora by his application dated 2-3-1984, Annexure A, under section 62 (1) (c) of the Act.

( 3. ) THE respondent No. 1 by his order dated 4-4-1984, Annexure-B, determined the temporary need and in pursuance of the order dated 4-4-1984 granted a temporary permit for four months vide, Annexure-C, for the period commencing from 15-4-1984 to 14-8-1984. The petitioner being aggrieved by the grant of temporary permit referred to above has fifed this petition for quashing the same.

( 4. ) THE learned counsel, Shri S. Q. Hasan, appearing for the petitioner has challenged the grant of temporary permit. His first submission was that the application, Annexure-A, as had been made for the grant of temporary permit, does not disclose any purpose enumerated under section 62 (1) (c) of the Act and, therefore, such application had to be rejected outright. His second submission was that the order contained in annexure-B, does not show application of mind by the respondent No. 1 relating to determination of particular temporary need and the order contained in Annexure-B is also not a speaking order. His third submission was that the timing granted is only 25 minutes ahead of the petitioners timing. Therefore, on all these three counts the grant of temporary permit is without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel, Shri P. R. Bhave, appearing for the respondent No. 2 has supported the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Bilaspur.

( 5. ) WE have heard the learned counsel for both the sides at length and have perused the documents filed by the parties i. e. Annexures A, B and C and the rejoinder of the petitioner and have reached the conclusion that there is no force in all submissions of the petitioner for the following reasons.

( 6. ) THE statement as made in the petition is that in the application form i. e. Annexure-A, in the column of particular temporary need, the respondent No. 2 has not disclosed the particular temporary need, is wholly incorrect. A perusal of Annexure-A discloses that the respondent No. 2 has disclosed in all 4 types of temporary need viz. :

(i) open season; (ii) marriage season; (iii) Bilaspur being the head-quarter of Revenue Commissioner division of Bilaspur Division, and (iv) Korba is an industrial city which had given rise to grant of temporary permit and hence the statement to this effect as made in this petition is wholly misconceived and appears to be a mis-statement of fact. Therefore, we reject the contention of the petitioner that Annexure-A does not disclose the particular temporary need.

( 7. ) REGARDING the second submission that the order contained in annexure B is not a speaking order, we have seen that the Secretary, regional Transport Authority has prepared a note for submitting it before the Regional Transport Authority and wrote in his note sheet: "asthayi ANUGYA-PATRA JAN-SUVIDHA KI DRISHTI se UCHIT HOGA. "