Judgment N.L.Untwalia, J. 1. The petitioner in this writ application holds a permanent stage carriage service permit for the route Bikramganj-Nasriganj-Dehri-Sasaram in the district of Shahabad. Respondent No. 1 had a permanent stage carriage permit for the route Arrah-Bihia-Piro-Sahar. This route from Piro to Sahar was through Sikarhatta, and the total distance, it appears, from Piro to Sahar through that route is about 24 miles. The route in the said distance became unmotorable due to some defect in some bridge in the way Thereupon respondent No. 1 applied before the South Bihar Regional Transport Authority, respondent No. 2, for grant of a temporary diversion of his service in this way that instead of taking his bus onward from Piro to Sahar through Sikarhatta, he should be permitted to take it from Piro to Bikramganj, then to Nasriganj and then to Sahar. The total distance via this route from Piro to Sahar is 42 miles. The South Bihar Regional Transport Authority, by its order dated 4-1-1971 (Annexure 1), rejected the prayer. The ground given by the Transport Authority in its order is that respondent No. 1 had his route, previously, Arrah-Bihia-Piro and he took extension up to Sahar knowing full well that the condition of the road from Piro to Sahar via Sikarhatta was not very good. Therefore, on his saying now that it is dangerous to ply bus on that road, a temporary diversion could not be granted. Respondent No. 1 went up straight to the State Government under Sec. 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, hereinafter called the Act, as it then stood under the Bihar amendment. The Transport Minister, in exercise of the revisional powers of the State Government, has allowed the temporary diversion by imposing certain conditions, and the time limit fixed for this temporary diversion is "till the bridge is reconstructed and the road is made motorable". A copy of his order dated 27-2-71 is Annexure 2 to this writ application. The petitioner has obtained a rule from this Court to quash the said order of the Transport Minister. Cause has been shown by respondent No. 1. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the various affidavits filed in this case, the position of fact which may be stated at the outset is that Sahar is a place which is well connected by bus services from Arrah and from Basriganj also. Cause has been shown by respondent No. 1. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the various affidavits filed in this case, the position of fact which may be stated at the outset is that Sahar is a place which is well connected by bus services from Arrah and from Basriganj also. There are several persons holding stage carriage permits for plying their buses on the said route to take passengers to Sahar from either side. In this background, I proceed to consider the points urged on behalf of the petitioner. They are the following:- - (i) That respondent No. 1 could not straightway go in revision to the State Government without filing an appeal before the Appeal Board in accordance with Sec. 64 of the Act. (ii) That no temporary diversion could be granted under any provision of the Act. (iii) That on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, it is plain that the Transport Minister committed error apparent on the face of the record in granting a temporary diversion presumably under Sec. 62 of the Act. (iv) That even under the said provision of law a temporary permit or temporary diversion could not be granted for a period exceeding 4 months. 3. On the language of Sec. 64-A of the Act, as it then stood under the Bihar amendment, it may not be possible to accept the first contention. But I do not propose to decide this question finally in this case. I proceed to examine the other 3 points on the assumption that respondent No. 1 could go direct in revision to the State Government. 4. In my opinion, the second point urged on behalf of the petitioner is well founded and must be accepted as correct. Granting of a diversion was to vary the conditions of the permit, and to my mind whether it was a temporary diversion or a permanent diversion, the provision of Sub-section (8) of Sec. 57 of the Act was attracted. And, for that, it is well settled that all the procedures of inviting objections, etc., had to be gone into. In terms there is no provision for a temporary variation of the conditions of a permit and to grant a temporary diversion. Under Sec. 62 of the Act a temporary, new permit can be granted but not a temporary diversion. And, for that, it is well settled that all the procedures of inviting objections, etc., had to be gone into. In terms there is no provision for a temporary variation of the conditions of a permit and to grant a temporary diversion. Under Sec. 62 of the Act a temporary, new permit can be granted but not a temporary diversion. Sec. 62 (1) reads as follows:- - "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 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 Sec. 46 or Sec. 54 during the pendency of the application: 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." It would be apparent from all the Clauses of Sub-section (1) of Sec. 62 that a temporary diversion of routes will not be permissible under the said provision of law. If the Authority feels that for the convenience of passengers on special occasions, such as, to and from fairs and religious gatherings, temporary permits should be granted then permits will be granted for the said purpose, not temporary diversions. The case will not come within Clause (c) either- The temporary need is the need of the public of the locality. But the need of the kind in this case will be the need of the plier of the bus. The case will not come within Clause (c) either- The temporary need is the need of the public of the locality. But the need of the kind in this case will be the need of the plier of the bus. If for one reason the Authority thought that for the people around Sahar the permanent plying of the bus, because of the defect in road from Piro to Sahar via Sikarhatta, could not be carried on a temporary permit could be granted for that purpose under Clause (c). But to grant a diversion of route to take the bus of respondent No. 1 via Bikramganj- Nasriganj and then to Sahar cannot be covered by Clause (c). I am, therefore, of the opinion that grant of a temporary diversion was not warranted in law. 5 Even assuming it was warranted it is to be emphasised that the ground on which it has been granted by the Transport Minister is not correct. It is erroneous on the face of the record. Two reasons are given in the impugned Order (i) that the Transport Authority in some other case has done so and (ii) that the connected service will be useful for the people of Sahar which is a neglected area not adequately served by road communication. The first ground is irrelevant as even if the Transport Authority had done so, it ought to have been checked rather than extended. The second ground given is not borne out on facts of this case. As I have stated above, granting of a temporary diversion for such a long route for the people of Sahar was wholly un justified and illegal. 6. The granting of the temporary diversion for an indefinite period in the terms as it has been done by the Transport Minister was manifestly illegal and against the express provision of Sec. 62 (1) of the Act. 7. For the reasons stated above, this writ application is allowed; the order dated 27-2-71 of the Transport Minister (Annexure 2) is quashed by grant of a writ of certiorari. In the circumstances, I shall make no order as to cost. Akbar Hussain, J. 8 I agree.