JUDGMENT M.C. Desai, J. - In this petition the petitioner challenges an order of the Regional Transport officer, Kanpur, opposite party No. 1, granting a temporary permit to opposite party no. 2. On 3-3-1958 opposite party No. I granted a temporary stage carriage permit for four months to opposite party no. 2 for Lalitpur Tikamgarh route, which is an interstate route, for plying bus no. U. P. U. 245 belonging to the petitioner. The route was an occupied and not a new route. Two permits (permanent) issued to one Marfatia and another person for plying buses on the route were cancelled and consequently two vacancies occurred and a notice inviting applications for permits on or by 31-5-1958 was published on 10-5-1958. On 30-5-1958 opposite party no. 2 applied for a (permanent) permit to ply bus no. U.P.U. 245 on the route, and on 31-5-1958 the petitioner applied to ply another bus on the same route in response to the notice. The temporary permit granted to opposite party no. 2 expired on 3-7-1958 and on 4-7-1958 he applied to opposite party No. 1 for another temporary permit for four months and got it. On 20th September, 1958, all applications for (permanent) permits received in response to the notice, including the two applications referred to above, were published in the Gazette. On 10-10-1958 the petitioner filed an objection before opposite party no. 1 challenging the validity of the temporary permit granted to opposite party no. 2 on 4-7-1958. On 8-11-1958 opposite party no. 2 applied (for, and got, a temporary permit for four months for plying another vehicle no. U. S. G. 846 on the route. The applications made for (permanent) permits for the route in response to the notice were all pending on 8-11-1958 and are still pending today, because of an order issued by this Court in a writ petition filed by Marfatia challenging the cancellation of his (permanent) permit. 2. The two buses, U.P.U. 245 and U S.G. 846 are stage carriages as defined in Sec. 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act (No. IV of 1939). No owner of a stage carriage can use it in any public place save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or counter signed by the Regional or State Transport Authority; see Sec. 42. No owner of a stage carriage can use it in any public place save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or counter signed by the Regional or State Transport Authority; see Sec. 42. An application for a permit should be made to the Regional Transport Authority and should contain the particulars mentioned in Sec. 46. The Regional Transport Authority is authorised by Sec. 48 Sub-Sec. (1) to grant a permit and sub-Sec. (3) authorises it to impose any of certain conditions. A permit is valid for such period, not less than three years and not more than five years, as the Regional Transport Authority may specify in the permit but the "permit may be renewed on an application made and disposed of as if it were an application for a permit" see Sec. 58 (1) (a) and (2). The procedure for applying for and granting a permit is laid down in Sec. 57 (2), (3) etc. Sub-Sec. (8) is to the effect that "an application to vary the conditions of any permit, other than a temporary permit, by the inclusion of a new route or routes or a new area or by increasing the number of services above the prescribed maximum shall be treated as an application for the grant of a new permit. "These are the relevant provisions regarding stage carriage permits in the Act; there are similar provisions regarding contract carriage permits and public carrier permits. "These are the relevant provisions regarding stage carriage permits in the Act; there are similar provisions regarding contract carriage permits and public carrier permits. Sec. 62 deals with 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" (which includes a contract carriage, a stage carriage and a public carrier) temporarily for any of the three specified objects on such conditions as may be imposed, or "pending decision on an application for the renewal of a permit." This power is subject to two provisions (I) "that a temporary permit 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 during the pendency of the application" and (2) "that a temporary permit shall, in no case, be granted more than once in respect of any route or area specified in an application for the renewal of a permit during the pendency of such application for renewal." 3. The above provisions show that the Act recognizes two kinds of stage carriage permits, (I) ordinary or regular permits referred to in Sec. 46, 47, 48, 57 and 58 and (2) temporary permits referred to in Sec. 62. I am describing the former class of permits as "permanent" permits to distinguish them from "temporary" permits. The Act does not recognise any third kind of permits such as "new permits." The words "new permit" have been used in Sec. 62, proviso one, and Sec. 57 (8) but they do not mean a permit different from the permit referred to in Secs. 46, 47 and 48 etc. In Sec. 62, proviso one, the word "new" has been prefixed to the word "permit" simply to distinguish it from renewed permit. The two provisos govern the whole of Sec. 62, under which temporary permits are granted - granted either for any of the three Specified objects or during the pendency of an application for the renewal of a permit about to expire. An application for a temporary permit may be made when some application is pending or when no application is pending. An application for a temporary permit may be made when some application is pending or when no application is pending. When no application is pending, the legislature has authorised the Regional Transport Authority to grant temporary permits without any restriction, provided they are granted for any of the specified objects. When some application is pending, it may be either for a permanent permit or for the renewal of a permanent permit about to expire or for a temporary permit. The legislature did not at all contemplate that there might be an occasion for the issue of a temporary permit during the pendency of an application for a temporary permit it would be wholly enomalous to grant a temporary permit pending consideration on an application for a temporary permit. No procedure is prescribed for the disposal of an application for a temporary permit; it can be granted as soon as it is applied for and the legislature did not contemplate any substantial time to intervene between applying for a temporary permit and passing orders on the application. The Legislature's policy is against the grant of a temporary permit when an application for a permanent permit is pending; it insists on the prompt disposal of applications for a permanent permit and erasures this by forbidding the grant of temporary permits during the pendency of such applications. If an application for the renewal of a permit is pending, the legislature does not want more than one temporary permit to be granted. It recognizes (vide note to sec. 62) that sometimes the disposal of an application for the renewal of a permit may be delayed and, therefore, has provided for the grant of a temporary permit during its pendency. The legislatures policy is given effect to through the two provisos, one forbidding the grant of a temporary permit during the pendency of an application for a permanent permit and the other for bidding the grant of more than one temporary permit during the pendency of an application for the renewal of a permit. In the first proviso the word "new" is used to distinguish the application from an application for mere renewal of a permit, which is dealt with in the second proviso. In the first proviso the word "new" is used to distinguish the application from an application for mere renewal of a permit, which is dealt with in the second proviso. The words "an application under Sec. 54" in the first proviso do not confer any right to apply for a new permit; instead they expressly refer to an application, the right to make which is conferred by Secs. 46 and 54. 4. These sections deal with applications for a permanent permit; consequently "new permit" means nothing more than "permanent permit" applied for by a person not holding a permit and, therefore, whose application would not be for the renewal of a permit. A person either has a permit or has none;, if he has, he applies for its renewal, and if he had none, he applies for one (i.e. new permit "new" because he does not hold any). In Sec. 57 (8) the word "new" has been used in a different sence. Here the object of the legislature is to treat an application for amendment of a permanent permit. A person, who already holds one permit and wants another permit in its place, may (surrender the one and) apply in the manner laid down in Sec. 46 etc. for another or apply for amendment of the one that he holds. The legislature treats an application for amendment as an application for the grant of a permanent permit under Sec. 46 and enacted Sub-Sec. (8) to give effect to its intention. 5. The word "new" here means nothing more then "another"; since he holds one permit his application must be for "another". "New permit" referred to in the first proviso to Sec 62 has, therefore, not the same significance as "new permit" in Sec. 57 (8) and there is no force in the contention that the grant of a temporary permit is prohibited only during the pendency of an application referred to in Sec. 57 (8) for amendment of a permanent permit. There is no such thing as a new permit as distinguished from a permanent permit and an application for the grant of a new permit is nothing but an application for the grant of a permanent permit. There is no such thing as a new permit as distinguished from a permanent permit and an application for the grant of a new permit is nothing but an application for the grant of a permanent permit. A holder of a permit who applies for its amendment is not entitled to any temporary permit under Sec. 62 during the pendency of his application; his case may not be covered by any of the three specified objects and when there is no application pending for the renewal of the permit, there would be no reason or occasion for granting a temporary permit. If an applicant for amendment of a permit under Sec. 57 (8) was not entitled at all to a temporary permit, there would have been no necessity of en-acting proviso one that no temporary permit shall be granted during the pendency of an application for amendment of a permit. 6. In Sec. 62, as originally enacted, a temporary permit was allowed to be granted only for any of the three specified objects and there was a note added to the section that a temporary permit may also be granted during the pendency of an application for the renewal of a permit. Subsequently the section was amended and a clear provision was added allowing the grant of a temporary permit pending decision on an application for the renewal of a permit. After the addition of this provision the note was rendered in fructuous but some how or other it is left intact. The addition of the provision made it necessary to add the two provisos, proviso one to make it clear that the addition did not mean that a temporary permit can be granted even during the pendency of an application for a permit made by a person who did not hold any permit, and the other proviso to impose a condition that not more than one temporary permit can be granted during the pendency of an application for the renewal. The legislature probably thought that the addition of the provision might be interpreted to mean that a temporary permit can be granted during the pendency of an application for a permanent permit because an application for the renewal of a permit has to be disposed of as if it were an application for a permanent permit. The petitioner contends that the temporary permit granted by opposite party no. The petitioner contends that the temporary permit granted by opposite party no. 1 to opposite party no. 2 on 8-11-1958, when (at least two) applications for permanent permits were pending, is illegal, being against proviso one to Sec. 62. It is proved, and cannot be disputed, that the two applications for permanent permit, one by the petitioner and the other by opposite party no. 2, were pending decision before opposite party no. 1 on 8-11-1958 and opposite party no. 1 was prohibited by the first proviso to Sec. 62 from granting a temporary permit to any one. I was informed that in the writ petition of Marfatia an order has been passed by this Court that the consideration of the applications for permanent permit be stayed during its pendency and that temporary permits might continue or be granted. No copy of the order was shown to me, but even if such an order has been passed, I would most respectfully point out that it was without jurisdiction. This Court has absolutely no jurisdiction to issue an order or direction against the law; and if the law is that no temporary permit can be granted during the pendency of an application for a permanent permit, or that not more than one temporary permit can be granted during the pendency of an application for the renewal of a permit, it is not competent to a High Court to issue an order or direction against the law. The directions and orders that a High Court can issue under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution must be in conformity with the law, and in any case must not be against express provisions of the law. This Court could not by mandamus compel the Regional Transport Authority to grant temporary permits because it is not bound by any law to grant them (the matter is at its discretion, vide the word "may" in Sec. 62 and has no jurisdiction to confer authority upon it to grant temporary permits. It derives its powers solely from the legislature, and must obey its command. This Court cannot order or even permit it to disobey it or to act against the law. It is forbidden by the legislature to grant a temporary permit during the pendency of an application for a permit, and this Court is powerless in any circumstance to ask it to do the forbidden act. This Court cannot order or even permit it to disobey it or to act against the law. It is forbidden by the legislature to grant a temporary permit during the pendency of an application for a permit, and this Court is powerless in any circumstance to ask it to do the forbidden act. It must be left free to act in conformity with the provisions of Sec. 62. 7. The petition is allowed. The temporary permit granted by opposite party no. 1 to opposite party no. 2 on 7/8-11-1958 for Lalitpur-Tikamgarh route is hereby quashed. A mandamus shall be issued requiring opposite-party no. 1 to take delivery of the temporary permit from opposite party no. 2 and to cancel it and to refrain from granting any temporary permit during the pendency of the applications made under Sec. 46 for a permit for the route. The petitioner will get his costs of this petition from opposite party no 2.