JUDGMENT V. Balakrishna Eradi, J. 1. The challenge in this writ petition is directed against the grant of a temporary permit made by the Regional Transport Authority, Trichur as per its order Ext. R-2, dated 29th April 1970. Under the impugned order the 3rd respondent herein has been granted a temporary permit to operate a stage carriage service on the route Trichur-Enammavukadavu via Ayyanthole. the petitioner is an operator conducting stage carriage service on the route Trichur-Enamavu via Aranattukara a substantial portion of which route is covered by the temporary service. On coming to know about the grant of the temporary permit he applied to the Regional Transport Authority, Trichur for a copy of its proceedings granting the temporary permit to the 3rd respondent but, very strangely, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Trichur did not accede to this request. Ext. P-2 is a copy of the order passed by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Trichur (1st respondent) rejecting the petitioner's application on the ground that the petitioner was not one of the applicants for the permit and no objection had been raised by him to the issue of the temporary permit. The conduct of the 1st respondent in refusing to furnish the petitioner with a certified copy of the order is to be condemned in the strongest terms. It is difficult to believe that the Secretary was not aware that the petitioner who is an operator on the route had every right to challenge the order of the Regional Transport Authority by instituting appropriate proceedings before this court and that the application for certified copy of the order must have been made for this purpose. The refusal by the 1st respondent to grant a certified copy to the petitioner virtually amounted to the placing of an obstacle so as to obstruct or delay the petitioner's approach to this court for pursuing the constitutional remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution and was therefore most improper. 2. A copy of the order passed by the Regional Transport Authority has been produced before this court by the grantee of the permit the 3rd respondent as an annexure to his counter-affidavit and has been marked as Ext. R-2. The Regional Transport Authority's file relating to the case has also been produced today by the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. 3. The petitioner challenges the order Ext. R-2. The Regional Transport Authority's file relating to the case has also been produced today by the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. 3. The petitioner challenges the order Ext. R-2 mainly on the ground that it does not contain any finding regarding the existence of any temporary need which would justify the invocation by the Regional Transport Authority of its powers under section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The order Ext. R-2 being very brief may be extracted in full and it reads: "Of the applicants No. 1 did not press his claim. No. 2 is having one temporary permit at present. He is financially sound and he has workshop facilities. The temporary permit will, therefore, be sanctioned to No. 2 Sri V. Raman". No discussion is necessary to show that this order does not satisfy the requirements of a valid grant of a temporary permit under section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It has been pointed out time and again by this court that under the said section the Regional Transport Authority is under a duty to pass a speaking order and that whenever it is decided by the authority that a permit should be granted under section 62 of the Act a clear and specific finding should be entered by the authority affirming the existence of a particular temporary need. The mere fact that a notification had been issued by the Regional Transport Authority inviting applications for the grant of temporary permit will not operate to obviate the necessity for a considered finding on the question of temporary need being entered by the Regional Transport Authority at the time of making the grant as has been pointed out by this court in V.O. Varkey v. Regional Transport Authority, Trichur 1969 K.L.T. 699. The impugned order Ext. R-2 granting the temporary permit to the 3rd respondent is therefore clearly illegal and void and is hereby quashed. 4. It will be open to the Regional Transport Authority to pass fresh orders in the matter in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained in this judgment in case a temporary need justifying the grant of a temporary permit exists. 4. It will be open to the Regional Transport Authority to pass fresh orders in the matter in accordance with law and in the light of the observations contained in this judgment in case a temporary need justifying the grant of a temporary permit exists. If such fresh proceedings are taken, the Regional Transport Authority should issue a notice and afford a hearing to the writ petitioner before final orders are passed by it in the matter. 5. The original petition is allowed as above. There will be no direction regarding costs. 6. Carbon copies of this judgment will be furnished to counsel appearing in the case on payment of the requisite charges.