JUDGMENT A. P. Srivastava , J. - This special appeal has been filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Regional Transport Officer, Meerut, against an order of Mr. Justice Jagdish Sahai, dated the 8th September 1960, by which he allowed a petition filed by the respondent No. 1 under Article 226 of the Constitution and issued a writ of mandamus commanding the Secretary of the second appellant to consider the respondent's application for temporary permits without calling for a no-objection certificate and irrespective of the opinion of the A.G.M. of Roadways. 2. The facts leading to the petition can be briefly stated: The respondent No. 1 held permanent stage carriage permits for the Meerut-Qila-Parichatgarh-Asigabad route and also for the Meerut-Hapur-Buxar route. His stage carriages were also sometimes hired for marriage parties or religious or historical excursions. On such occasions if the route overlapped in part or whole a notified route the respondent No. 1 used to obtain temporary permits. On the 26th July 1960 the respondent submitted an application for the grant of a temporary permit for the purpose of Jain Yatra from Meerut to Sri Mahabirji between the 18th October 1960 and the 22nd October 1960. On receiving the application the Regional Transport Authority sent it to the A. G. M. Roadways, Meerut for stating if he had any objection. The application was returned with the endorsement that Roadways buses were available on the said dates and no temporary permits could be granted for the vehicles of the respondent. The application of the respondent was thereupon returned to him in the original with the endorsement that he should obtain a report from the Assistant General Manager, Roadways. As no-objection report could not be obtained by him, his application was not entertained. He then filed the writ petition claiming a writ of mandamus directing the Regional Transport Authority to consider his application for a temporary permit according to law. The petition was opposed on the ground that as a part of the route for which the temporary permit had been prayed for overlapped a notified route no temporary permit could be granted without a no-objection certificate from the Assistant General Manager of the Roadways. 3. The petition was opposed on the ground that as a part of the route for which the temporary permit had been prayed for overlapped a notified route no temporary permit could be granted without a no-objection certificate from the Assistant General Manager of the Roadways. 3. The learned Judge who heard the petition was of opinion that the Regional Transport Authority exceeded its jurisdiction by acting on considerations quite foreign to the provisions of Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the application of the respondent No. 1 had not been considered by it according to law. He, therefore, allowed the petition and issued a writ of mandamus as prayed. 4. It is urged in appeal on behalf of the appellants that the view taken by the learned Judge was not correct as he overlooked the provisions of Section 10 of the U.P. Road Transport Services (Development), Act, 1955. It is pointed out that if there is a notified route and Government buses running on that route are available no temporary permit can be granted to any other person for plying his stage carriages on that route. 5. The grant of temporary permits is regulated by Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act which reads like this: "62. A Regional Transport Authority may without following the procedure laid down in Section 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 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 Section 46 or Section 54 during the pendency of the applications: 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 the renewal of a permit during the pendency of such application for renewal." 6. It is clear from the section that the Legislature has taken care to lay down the considerations which should be kept in view by the Regional Transport Authority while considering whether to grant or refuse a temporary permit. It will be noticed that there is no provision in the section which entitles the Regional Transport Authority to refuse a temporary permit simply on the ground that Government buses are available on a notified route. If, therefore, the Regional Transport Authority passes an order on an application for a temporary permit taking into consideration matters not mentioned in Section 62 it obviously takes into account irrelevant matters which it has no right to do. The application for a temporary permit must be granted or refused on the considerations mentioned in the section. It is not open either to the Regional Transport Authority or to the General Manager of the Roadways to add a third proviso to Section 62 and to provide that if buses of the Government are available a temporary permit can never be granted in respect of a notified route. The opening sentence of an order dated the 24th February 1960 made by the Regional Transport Officer, Meerut, which has been filed as Annexure `A' to the petition shows that the Regional Transport Officer was tinder the mistaken impression that applications for temporary permits for reserve parties on routes covering notified routes can never be granted unless the Roadways authorities give a no-objection certificate in respect of each of such applications. This was probably what led the Regional Transport Officer in the present case to send for a no-objection certificate and the refusal to consider the application of the respondent because a no-objection certificate was not forthcoming. 7. Sec. 10 of the U.P. Road Transport Services (Development) Act, 1955 does not appear to be applicable at all. It empowers the State Government in the circumstances mentioned in Cl. (a) of the section to dispense with the observance in part or whole of certain provisions of Ch. IV of the Motor Vehicles Act. 7. Sec. 10 of the U.P. Road Transport Services (Development) Act, 1955 does not appear to be applicable at all. It empowers the State Government in the circumstances mentioned in Cl. (a) of the section to dispense with the observance in part or whole of certain provisions of Ch. IV of the Motor Vehicles Act. Those provisions, however, must be in respect of (i) the necessity of taking out or granting or counter-signing permits; (ii) the duration and renewal of permits; (iii) the conditions attached to permits; (iv) the cancellation and suspension of permits; and (v) the restrictions on the number of permits as it may notify in that behalf in the official Gazette. 8. None of these provisions appear to relate to the grant of temporary permits provided for in Sec. 62. The first clause relating to the necessity of taking out or granting or counter-signing permits can relate only to Government vehicles which are to run on the notified routes and not to buses of private persons. The second clause relates to the duration and renewal of permits. The application of the respondent did not relate to either of these matters. The third clause may relate to the conditions of temporary permits also but does not relate to their grant or refusal. The fourth clause relating to cancellation and suspension of permits presupposes the existence of permits which are to be cancelled or suspended. It does not relate to the grant of fresh temporary permits or refusals of applications for such permits. The fifth clause relates to the restrictions on the number of permits and does not appear to have anything to do with the grant of temporary permits. No advantage can, therefore, be claimed by the appellants on the basis of Sec. 10. 9. It was urged that under Cl. (c) of Section 62 of the Motor Vehicle Act it is open to the Regional Transport Authority to refuse a temporary permit on the ground that there is no temporary need and if Government buses are available the Authority may come to the conclusion that there is no temporary need. The Regional Transport Authority has certainly to decide whether there is a temporary need or not and in arriving at that decision it is open to the Authority to take into consideration the availability of other buses, including Government buses, on the route. The Regional Transport Authority has certainly to decide whether there is a temporary need or not and in arriving at that decision it is open to the Authority to take into consideration the availability of other buses, including Government buses, on the route. But if the Regional Transport Authority while dealing with an application for a temporary permit decides to reject it on the ground that it is not satisfied about the existence of the temporary need it must say so and should not leave it to be inferred from the fact that a no-objection certificate from the General Manager of the Roadways is not available. A no-objection certificate can be refused on many grounds other than the availability of Government buses. Moreover, each clause of Section 62 relates to a different purpose and before an application for a temporary permit can be rejected under Sec. (c) on the ground that there is no temporary need it must be a case in which the application is made for the purpose of a particular temporary need. If the application is made for any of the other needs mentioned in the other clauses of the section the question of the existence of a temporary need may not arise. From what the petitioner had stated in the petition it appears that he was applying for temporary permits for the conveyance of passengers on the special occasion of the Mahabirji fair. The application was, therefore, made under Cl. (a) of See. 62 and not under Cl. (c). 10. Sec. 62 further shows that it is the Regional Transport Authority which has to apply its mind to the matter and decide whether to refuse or grant the application for a temporary permit. In doing so it is certainly open to the Authority to collect all the necessary information to enable it to exercise its discretion but it cannot leave the matter to the decision of another person and decide to abide by what that other person says. In the present case it appears that the Regional Transport Authority did not exercise its own discretion at all and did not even apply its mind to the question whether a temporary permit was to be granted or refused. It only sent the application to the General Manager, Roadways for a no-objection certificate and because that certificate was not forthcoming it refused to entertain the application. It only sent the application to the General Manager, Roadways for a no-objection certificate and because that certificate was not forthcoming it refused to entertain the application. The decision to reject the application in the present case was, therefore, not of the Regional Transport Authority itself but of the General Manager of the Government Roadways. 11. The learned Judge was, therefore, perfectly justified in allowing the petition and directing the Regional Transport Authority to consider the application of the petitioner according to law. No case has been made out by the appellants for interference with that order. 12. The appeal is, therefore, rejected.