Judgment 1. In this case the petitioner has obtained a rule from the High Court calling upon the respondents to show cause why a writ in the nature of certiorari ought not to be issued for quashing the order of the Chairman, East Bihar Regional Transport Authority, dated the 25th, July 1960, granting a temporary permit for a period of four months to Sri S. N. Agarwala, respondent No. 2, for the route from Dumka to Mahesh Khala. 2. There is no appearance on behalf of respondent No. 1, but cause has been shown by respondent No. 2, Sri S. N. Agarwala, in whose favour the temporary permit was ordered to be granted. 3. The impugned order of the Chairman, East Bihar Regional Transport Authority, is Annexure A to the application and reads as follows:- "Discussed with D. C. T. P. may issue Sri S. N. Agarwala four months Dumka to Mahesh Khala. Sd. R. Prasad 25-7-60." It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the order of the Chairman is ultra vires and illegal because the order does not show on its face that the temporary permit has been given for one of the reasons specified in Sec. 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which is in the following terms:- "62, 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 purpose of a seasonal business, or (c) to meet a particular temporary need, or (d) pending decision of an application for the renewal of a permit; and may 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. x X X X X" 4. In our opinion the argument addressed on behalf of the petitioner is well founded and must be accepted as correct. x X X X X" 4. In our opinion the argument addressed on behalf of the petitioner is well founded and must be accepted as correct. It is true that in the counter-affidavit of respondent No. 2 there is an allegation that in the beginning of the paddy transplantation season a large number of coolies travel from Dumka towards Mahesh Khala and so the temporary permit is justified because of the seasonal requirement. This allegation is denied by the petitioner in his reply to the counter-affidavit. But whatever be the correct position, it was incumbent upon the Regional Transport Authority to set out the reasons in his order granting the temporary permit, so that the order may have shown on its face that there was compliance with the statutory Condition prescribed in Sec. 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the grant of such a temporary permit. In the present case the order of the Regional Transport Authority does not show that a temporary permit was granted for any of the reasons mentioned in Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is obvious that a temporary permit may be granted only for the reasons mentioned in Sec. 62 of the Act and subject to the limitations mentioned in that section; and since the order of the Chair man of the East Bihar Regional Transport Authority does not show on the face of the order that these conditions of Sec. 62 have been complied with, it follows that the order of the Chairman, East Bihar Regional Transport Authority, is ultra vires 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. Petition allowed.