Judgment 1. In this case the petitioner has moved the High Court for grant of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution fox the purpose of calling up and quashing an order of the Deputy Minister of Transport, dated 11-9-1959, made in an appeal against the order of the State Transport Authority, dated 18-2-1959. Cause has been shown by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the State Transport Authority and the Deputy Minister of Transport who are respondents 1 and 2 to the application. Cause has also been shown by the learned Government Advocate on behalf of respondents 3 and 4, Sri Sarjoo Prasad Singh and Sri S. M. Islam. 2. It appears that on 23-7-1958, a notice was published in the Bihar Gazette on behalf of the State Transport Authority, inviting applications for a stage carriage permit for a new service on the route Aurangabad Ranchi, Via Chhatarpur, Hariharganj and Daltongunj. On 17-9-1958, the State Transport Authority published a notice in the Bihar Gazette inviting objections, if any, to the applications filed before it for the grant of the stage carriage permit. The petitioner Subansh Jha and certain other persons filed objections before the State Transport Authority on the ground that no such service on the route was necessary. On 8-2-1959, the State Transport Authority duly heard the objections and the applicants for the stage carriage permit and decided that there was no necessity for any direct service between Ranchi and Aurangabad and did not, therefore, consider the comparative merits of the various applicants for the proposed route. Against this order of the State Transport Authority respondents 3 and 4, namely, Sri Sarjoo Prasad Singh and Sri S. M. Islam, preferred appeals before the Government of Bihar. The appeals were heard by the Deputy Minister of Transport, who also took the view that there was no justification for granting a permanent stage carriage permit. The Deputy Minister, however, observed that "Ranchi may become a place of attraction with the establishment of the Heavy Engineering Corporation and other Central Corporations and will very soon provide employment and work to many people of the State". He, therefore, directed that the "route may be tried for six months and the appellants Sri Sarjoo Prasad Singh and Sri S. M. Islam may be given temporary permits for the same period". 3. He, therefore, directed that the "route may be tried for six months and the appellants Sri Sarjoo Prasad Singh and Sri S. M. Islam may be given temporary permits for the same period". 3. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the order of the Deputy Minister of Transport is ultra vires and illegal. It was submitted that the Deputy Minister of Transport has no authority to grant temporary permits in an appeal preferred under Sec. 64 (a), of the Motor Vehicles Act. In our opinion this contention is well founded and must prevail. Sec. 64(a) reads as follows: "64. Appeals, -- Any person (a) aggrieved by the refusal of the state or a Regional Transport Authority to grant a permit, or by any condition attached to a permit granted to him, X X X X X X may, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, appeal to the prescribed authority who shall give such person and the original authority an opportunity of being heard." The procedure for granting permanent permits is laid down in Sec. 57 of the Statute which reads as follows : "57. Procedure in applying for and granting permits. (1) An application for a contract carriage permit or a private carriers permit may be made at any time. (2), An application for a stage carriage permit or a public carriers permit shall be made not less than six weeks before the date on which it is desired that the permit shall take effect, or, if the Regional Transport Authority appoints dates for the receipt of such application, or such dates. (2), An application for a stage carriage permit or a public carriers permit shall be made not less than six weeks before the date on which it is desired that the permit shall take effect, or, if the Regional Transport Authority appoints dates for the receipt of such application, or such dates. (3) On receipt of an application for a stage carriage permit or a public carriers permit, the Regional Transport Authority shall make the application available for inspection at the office of the authority and shall publish the application or the substance thereof in the prescribed manner together with a notice of the date before which representations in connection therewith may be submitted and the date, not being less than thirty days from such publication, on which, and the time and place at which, the application and any representations, received will be considered : Provided that, if the grant of any permit in accordance with the application or with modifications would have the effect of increasing the number of vehicles operating in the region, or in any area or in any route within the region, under the class of permits to which the application relates, beyond the limit fixed in that behalf under Sub-section (3) of Sec. 47 or Sub-section (2) of Sec. 55, as the case may be, the Regional Transport Authority may summarily refuse the application without following the procedure laid down in the sub-section. (4) No representation in connection with an application referred to in Sub-section (3) shall be considered by the Regional Transport Authority unless it is made in writing before the appointed date and unless a copy thereof is furnished simultaneously to the applicant by the person making such representation. (5) When any representation such as is referred to in Sub-section (3); is made, the Regional Transport Authority shall dispose of the application at a public hearing at which the applicant and the person making the representation shall have an opportunity of being heard either in person or by a duly authorised representative. (5) When any representation such as is referred to in Sub-section (3); is made, the Regional Transport Authority shall dispose of the application at a public hearing at which the applicant and the person making the representation shall have an opportunity of being heard either in person or by a duly authorised representative. (6) When any representation has been made by the persons or authorities referred to in Sec. 50 to the effect that the number of contract carriages for which permits have already been granted in any region or any area within a region is sufficient for or in excess of the needs of the region or of such area, whether such representation is made in connection with a particular application for the grant of a contract carriage permit or otherwise, the Regional Transport Authority may take any such steps as it considers appropriate for the hearing of the representation in the presence of any persons likely to be affected thereby. (7) When a Regional Transport Authority refuses an application for a permit of any kind, it shall give to the applicant in writing its reasons for the refusal. X X X X X X" Section 62 deals with the grant of temporary permits and enacts as follows : "62. Temporary permits-- A Regional Transport Authority may without following the procedure laid down in Sec. 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) for the conveyance of passengers on special occasions such as to and from fairs and religious gatherings, or (b) for the purposes of a seasonal business, or (c) to meet a particular temporary need, or (d) pending decision on an application for the renewal of a permit; and inav attach to any such permit any condition it thinks fit: 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 Sec. 46 or Sec. 54 during the pendency of the application. Provided further that a temporary permit under this section shall, in no case, be granted more than once in respect of any route or area specified in an application for renewal." There was an amendment made in Sec. 62 by Bihar Act XXVII of 1950, and the amended section provides that a Regional Transport Authority may grant; a temporary permit without following the procedure laid clown in Sec. 57 for a period not exceeding four months "in such circumstances as may, in the opinion of such Authority, justify the grant of such permits"; The question at issue in the present case is whether the Authority hearing an appeal under Sec. 64 (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act from an order of the State Transport Authority refusing to grant a permanent permit is entitled to make an order granting temporary permits to the persons who preferred the appeal. In our opinion such an order is beyond the power of the Appellate Authority hearing the appeal under Sec. 64 (a) of the statute. The reason is that the Appellate Authority is a creature of the statute and the powers of the Appellate Authority are strictly circumscribed by the statute. The subject-matter of the appeal to the Appellate Authority under Sec. 64(a) is a refusal of the permanent permit by the State Transport Authority and it is manifest that in disposing of the appeal the Appellate Authority would be travelling beyond its jurisdiction in granting a temporary permit. For these reasons we hold that the order of the Deputy Minister of Transport granting temporary permits to Sri Prasad Singh and Sri S. M. Islam, respondents 3 and 4, for a period of six months in each case, is ultra vires and beyond jurisdiction, and must be quashed by a writ in the nature of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution. We accordingly allow this application. There will be no order as to costs. 4. We desire to add that the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2 said that he had nothing to say in this case.