ORDER The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Tirunelveli, by the order dated 14th February, 1964 granted to the second respondent, on his application, a temporary permit for a period of four months in respect of his bus - MDU 4584 to ply on the route Tirunelveli Town to Melapalayam via. Melanatham. By the same order he also fixed a schedule of timings for the bus. This petition is to quash this order. This Court in Pachayappa Mudaliar v. S.S. Motor Service (P.) Ltd, A.I.R. 1964 Mad. 130, held that the power under section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act should be used only in case of a temporary need. In W.P. No. 431 of 1963 ( S.M. Thanapala Nadar, Proprietor, Sri Sugumar Transport, Tirunelveli v. The Regional Transport Authority) it was held that Where an application for a permanent permit is pending disposal, no temporary permit for the same route could be granted. This view was based upon the construction of the scope of the First Proviso to section 62. This principle has also been extended to cases of variation of routes. In the light of these principles the petitioner submits that the first respondent has failed to apply them and, in fact, in disregard of them he has granted the temporary permit. On the other hand, the contention for the second respondent is that the route covered by the temporary permit now under question is not the same route as is involved in the application of February, 1962, made by the transferor of the second respondent, and, in any case, the temporary permit has been granted not to the original applicant but to the transferee applicant and that further between the last grant of the temporary permit and the permit in this case there was a gap. The main route covered by the permanent permit is Palayapettai to Tirunelveli Junction via. Tirunelveli Town and Kurukkuthurai. The variation sought in the application dated February, 1962, is Kurukkuthurai to Melapalayam via Melanatham. The temporary permit now issued to the second respondent is on the route Tirunelveli Town to Melapalayam via Kurukkuthurai and Melanatham. In substance It will be clear that the temporary permit is in relation to the route Kurukkuthurai to Melapalayam via Melanatham. The rest of the route covered by the temporary permit is already part of the original route to which the permanent permit applies. In substance It will be clear that the temporary permit is in relation to the route Kurukkuthurai to Melapalayam via Melanatham. The rest of the route covered by the temporary permit is already part of the original route to which the permanent permit applies. Obviously, therefore, as it seems to me, the temporary permit now issued covers the identical variation which the application dated February, 1962 asked for. That application is still, I am told, pending disposal. To say the least, the first respondent has indulged in a sort of juggling in order to by-pass the two decisions of this Court which in effect forbade him from granting the temporary permit. Such attempt on his part is highly reprehensible. When this Court interprets a statutory provision and declares the law it is binding on all the administrative officers and they are obliged to follow the same and give effect to it. The temporary permit granted by the first respondent is contrary to the First Proviso to section 62. The temporary permit is also contrary to the principle laid down by this Court in Pachayappa Mudaliar v. S.S. Motor Service1, namely that the temporary permit can be issued only in case of a temporary need. A temporary permit was issued for the route Kurukkuthurai to Melapalayam via Melanatham almost successively from nth January, 1962. The first temporary permit was in force between 11th January, 1962 and 10th May, 1962. It was again and again issued and re-issued between nth May, 1962 and 10th September, 1962, 11th September, 1962 and 10th January, 1963, 11th January, 1963 and 10th May, 1963 and finally 11th May, 1963 and 11th September 1963. The decision of this Court in W.P. No. 431 of 1963 was pronounced on 16th August, 1963. Evidently because of this judgment the temporary permit was not renewed between 11th September, 1963 and 15th February, 1964. The successive issue and renewals of the temporary permit will show beyond doubt than the need here was hardly temporary. That being the case, the first respondent was bound to follow the principle laid down by this Court in Pachayappa Mudaliar v. S.S. Motor Service (P.) Ltd.1. He cannot pretend that merely because there was a small gap in time between nth September, 1963 and 15th February, 1964, that made any difference to the application of the principle of that decision. He cannot pretend that merely because there was a small gap in time between nth September, 1963 and 15th February, 1964, that made any difference to the application of the principle of that decision. The second contention of the second respondent is that he is a transferee and the original applicant is the transferor, but that plainly cannot affect the position that where an application for a permanent permit is pending, no temporary permit can be issued. This principle will equally apply to cases of variation and where the need is permanent as may be seen from the facts, no temporary permit can be issued properly under section 62. The order of the first respondent is quashed and the petition is allowed. I direct the first respondent to pay the Petitioner costs personally which I fix at Rs. 100. K.S.-----Petition allowed.