Jagat Narayan, J.—This is a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution by Messrs. General Motor Bus Service, Jaipur, against the Regional Transport Authority and the State Transport Authority, Rajasthan. 2. The facts, which have given rise to this petition, are these. The petitioner applied for grant of four temporary permits for plying stage carriages between Jaipur and Kotah on 25th November, 1954, and for grant of four non-temporary permits on the same route on 3rd December, 1954. It may be mentioned that there is no direct service between Kotah and Jaipur so far. Buses ply between Kotah and Deoli and Deoli and and Jaipur. The R.T.A. did not publish the applications for grant of non-temporary permits on account of a direction issued by the S.T. A. by its resolution dated 24th Jan., 1955, asking the R.T.A. to open the Jaipur-Kotah route on a temporary basis to assess the traffic potentiality. It authorised the R.T.A. to issue two temporary permits along the route. The R.T.A., however, maintained that as there was no temporary need, a temporary permit could not be issued,and invited applications for grant of non-temporary permits, by resolution dated 27, 28/29th June, 1955. In response to the invitation, the petitioner applied for ) the grant of six non-temporary permits to it on 22nd August, 1955. These applications were published, but no decision was taken on them by the R.T.A. as required by sec. 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The reason was that the S.T.A. passed a resolution on 7th September, 1955, directing the R.T.A., Jaipur,not to issue non-temporary permits along the route. The applications of the petitioner have not yet been decided by the R.T.A., Jaipur. It is prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued to the R.T.A. directing it to decide the applications in accordance with the provisions of sec. 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. So far as the application of the petitioner for grant of temporary permits is concerned, it is conceded on behalf of the petitioner that such permits cannot be granted as there is no temporary need. The petition is only pressed with regard to the grant of permanent permits. 4. The petition is opposed on behalf of the State Transport Authority. So far as the application of the petitioner for grant of temporary permits is concerned, it is conceded on behalf of the petitioner that such permits cannot be granted as there is no temporary need. The petition is only pressed with regard to the grant of permanent permits. 4. The petition is opposed on behalf of the State Transport Authority. From the affidavit filed by the Director of Transport, Rajasthan, it appears that the State Government is considering a proposal to nationalise certain routes, including the Jaipur-Kotah route, and with this object, have requested the Central Government to enforce the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, in the territory of the State of Rajasthan, and pending consideration of the proposal, the S.T.A. has by its resolution dated 24th June, 1958 given directions to postpone the consideration of grant of permits on the routes proposed to be nationalised, including the Jaipur-Kotah route. 5. On behalf of the respondents, it is argued that it is open to the S. T. A. to issue such a direction under sec. 44 (3) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, and the R.T.A. is bound to give effect to it in the discharge of its functions under the Act in view of the provision of sec. 44 (4) of the Act. 6. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that such a direction cannot be issued, as it is opposed to the provisions of sec. 47 and 57 of the Act. The case of Madhah Chandra Das vs. Regional Transport Authority (1) was referred to in support of this contention. 7. We have carefully considered the provision of sec. 44 and secs. 47 and 57 of the Act, and we do not think that there is any conflict between the direction issued by the S. T. A. in this case and the provisions of secs. 47 and 57 of the Act. So far as the Assam case(l) is concerned, it was decided before the amended Motor Vehicles Act came into force. In the Act, as it stood at the time of the decision, there was no provision for nationalising the transport service along any route. 8. We accordingly see no reason to interfere with the direction issued by the S.T.A., which, in our opinion, can validly be issued under sec. In the Act, as it stood at the time of the decision, there was no provision for nationalising the transport service along any route. 8. We accordingly see no reason to interfere with the direction issued by the S.T.A., which, in our opinion, can validly be issued under sec. 44 (3) (a) of the Act, and which is also appropriate in the circumstances of the case; for a non-temporary permit cannot be issued for a shorter period than three years and nationalising the route compensation becomes payable to permit holders under sec. 68-G of the Act for the unexpired period of the permit at a substantial rate. The route is already served by two sets of stage carriages as well as by rail and it cannot be said that the public is being seriously inconvenienced by the absence of a direct stage carriage running between Jaipur and Kotah. We accordingly reject the petition. In the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs. 9. It was prayed that the case be certified as a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court. We do not see sufficient reason to do so and reject the prayer.