JUDGMENT K.K. Mathew, J. 1. This is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate order quashing Ext. P-4 order passed by the R.T.A., Alleppey, the 1st respondent, granting a temporary permit to the 2nd respondent on the route Kanjikuzhi to Poochakkal. The 2nd respondent had applied for a temporary permit and a permit was granted to him under Ext. P-3 order for the period from 5th April 1966 to 25th April 1966. The grant was made by the Secretary to the R.T.A. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent applied by Ext. R-1 on 15th April 1966 for a permit in the route Muhamma-Poochakkal and in pursuance to this application, the R.T.A. has passed Ext.P-4 order granting a temporary permit on the route Kanjikuzhi-Poochakkal for a period of four months. 2. One attack of the petitioner against this grant is that the R.T.A. has no jurisdiction to grant a temporary permit in respect or a route not specified in the application. The petitioner's counsel also submitted, on the basis of the recital in Ext. P-4 order, that a temporary permit was granted to the second respondent for the period from 1st May 1966 to 5th May 1966, on the basis of Ext. P-5 application, which specified the period for which the permit was applied for as 1st May 1966 to 5th May 1966, that there was no subsequent application by the 2nd respondent to the R.T.A. for issue of any further permit, that as Ext. P-4 grant is for a period of 4 months, the order is invalid, as no permit for a period not applied for could be granted by the R.T.A. As a matter of fact, it is clear from the records that no temporary permit was granted to the second respondent for the period from 1st May 1966 to 5th May 1966. The recital in Ext. P-4 order that such a grant was made is wrong. It would seem that the 2nd respondent filed Ext. P-5 application for a permit for the period from 1st May 1966 to 5th May 1966 on 23rd April 1966. But nothing seems to have been done on that application. The application, in pursuance to which Ext. P-4 order was passed, is marked as Ext. R-1 and that application specified the period for which the permit was applied for as 25th April 1966 to 24th August 1966. But nothing seems to have been done on that application. The application, in pursuance to which Ext. P-4 order was passed, is marked as Ext. R-1 and that application specified the period for which the permit was applied for as 25th April 1966 to 24th August 1966. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention of counsel that the permit has been granted for a period not applied for. The other submission of counsel is that even assuming that Ext- R-1 is the basis for the grant under Ext- P-4, the permit has been granted in respect of a route not applied for under Ext. R-1 and therefore the grant is invalid, I do not think that there is any substance in this contention either, for the reason that it is open to the R.T.A. to grant a permit in respect of a curtailed route. Section 48 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Act 4 of 1939, no doubt, says that no permit shall be granted in respect of a route not applied for but I do not think that , if an application is made for a permit on a longer route, the R. T. A is precluded from granting the permit for a shorter route comprised in the longer route specified in the application 3. Then the submission of counsel for the petitioner was that there was no particular temporary need justifying the grant of a temporary permit under section 62. The 2nd respondent's counsel, on the other hand, submitted that by Ext. R-3 the Principal of the N.S.S. College had requested the Collector, the Chairman of the R. T. A., to introduce a bus in this route for the purpose of catering to the needs of the students, who were studying in the College. In Ext. R-3 letter, this is what the Principal has stated: " There are only a few buses in the line and most of them are not in good condition. In order to enable the students to reach the College in time during the days of the University Examination a permit was granted to K.L. A. 1314 to operate services from Kanjikuzhi to Poochakkal. That has been of considerable help to us. The University examinations are to be conducted till the end of this month. Further more, steps are being taken to upgrade the college from the beginning of the next academic year. That has been of considerable help to us. The University examinations are to be conducted till the end of this month. Further more, steps are being taken to upgrade the college from the beginning of the next academic year. This means more buses and more facilities are required. " From this letter, it would appear that there was a particular temporary need justifying the grant. The letter was written on 20th April 1966 and Ext. P-3 order would show that the R. T. A. granted a temporary permit on the basis of the particular temporary need as envisaged in this letter also. But counsel for the petitioner submitted that the need ended by the end of that month as the examinations were over by that time and therefore the extension of the grant under Ext. P-3 by Ext. P-4 order for the same reason was not justified. Although I see some force in this argument, I am not inclined to accept it. The Motor Vehicles Inspector has prepared a report about the necessity for additional services in the route and he has categorically stated therein that there is need for additional services so far as the public is concerned. The need for additional services in the route would continue even though the examinations are over. The college is going to be upgraded and there would be need for additional services in the route alter the re-opening of the college. The college will re-open shortly. In these circumstances I do not think that I should interfere with the evaluation made by the R. T. A. about the temporary need. It was argued by counsel for the petitioner that the order ought to be quashed as the order does not state the reasons for the grant. Though generally the order should state the reasons for the grant or for its refusal, in view of the facts and circumstances of this case I do not think that this defect would vitiate the order. There are materials in the record to show that there is temporary need and Ext. P-3 order has been passed stating the temporary need. Ext. P-4 purports to be an extension of the grant under Ext. P-3. It might be that no reasons were given in Ext. P-4 because reasons were already given in Ext. P-3. Mr. There are materials in the record to show that there is temporary need and Ext. P-3 order has been passed stating the temporary need. Ext. P-4 purports to be an extension of the grant under Ext. P-3. It might be that no reasons were given in Ext. P-4 because reasons were already given in Ext. P-3. Mr. V. M. B. Menon submitted on the basis of the Supreme Court ruling in Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. B. P. Upadhyaya, Regional Transport Authority A.I.R. 1966 Supreme Court 156 that there is no real antithesis between a temporary need and a permanent need and that a temporary permit can be issued to meet permanent need. Without passing upon that question in this case, I do not think that I should exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 in the circumstances of this case and issue the writ prayed for. I dismiss the petition. No costs.