Judgment :- 1. The challenge in this Original Petition is to the grant of a temporary permit by the Regional Transport Authority, Cannanore to run a service between Cannanore H.Q. Hospital and Azheekode. The grant is challenged as unwarranted by the provisions of S.62 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939. which enables the grant of temporary permits. 2. At the meeting held on 2112 1971 the first respondent considered as item 10 (a) the question of the proposal for the introduction of a pucca stage carriage service on the route Cannanore H. Q. Hospital-Azhikkal and as item 10 (b) the question of grant to suo motu applications for a temporary permit on the route Cannanore H.Q. Hospital-Azheekkode for a period of four months. On the first of these, the Regional Transport Authority took the decision that a pucca service should be introduced on the route Cannanore H.Q. Hospital to Azhikkal Ferry. On the question of issue of temporary permit on the Cannanore H Q. Hospital to Azheekkode route it held that temporary permit is to be granted to applicant No. 2 "to meet the present rush of traffic." 3. The route Cannanore H.Q. Hospital Azheekkode covers the greater part of the route Cannanore H.Q. Hospital Azhikkal. Azhikode is a point between the Hospital and Azhikkal. Therefore, it was for a part of the route on which Regional Transport Authority decided to introduce a pucca service that the temporary permit has been granted. 4. It is said by the petitioner that the issue of a temporary permit for the part of a route for which consideration of a pucca permit has been decided upon was improper and is against the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is further argued that in any case the grant of temporary permit by Ext. P4 order is had due to absence of considerations relevant in the matter of such a grant. 5. It is now well settled that temporary need can co-exist with a permanent need. The mere fact that the Regional Transport Authority finds that there is justification for introduction of a pucca stage carriage service on a route may not debar the Regional Transport Authority from considering application for temporary service in the same route provided the considerations under S.62 of the Motor Vehicles Act are shown to be present. The mere fact that the Regional Transport Authority finds that there is justification for introduction of a pucca stage carriage service on a route may not debar the Regional Transport Authority from considering application for temporary service in the same route provided the considerations under S.62 of the Motor Vehicles Act are shown to be present. The exception to this may be a case provided by the section itself. The first proviso to S.62 (1) is relevant in this regard. It provides that "Provided that a temporary permit under this section shall, in no case, be granted in respect of any route or area specified in as application for the grant of a new permit under S.46 or 54 during the pendency of the application." Of course this is not a case where there is any such application pending and therefore the proviso has no application to this case. Therefore, on that contention the petitioner cannot succeed. 6. What I have stated above is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in M.P.S.R.T. Corpn, v. R. T, Authority (AIR. 1966 S.C.156). 7. Time and again this court had occasion to tell the Regional Transport Authorities that they have a duty to pass speaking orders when issuing temporary permits under S.62 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is not unusual to find grant of temporary permits apparently outside the scope of S.62 of the Act either for the reason that the orders would not show any reason for the issue of the permit or because the reasons indicated are outside the purview of S.62 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 8. When a person applies for the issue of a temporary permit in Form P.T.A. prescribed under R.175 (f) of the Motor Vehicles Rules, he has to indicate in answer to column 4 the purpose for which the permit is required. This is the basis for consideration of the application by the Regional Transport Authority. The Authority has to consider whether the purpose indicated is one which is relevant and if it is, whether the Regional Transport Authority could find, on the merits, that such purpose is real. If it decides on these questions in favour of the applicant the permit may be granted provided the applicant is eligible and in case of contest, the most eligible. If it decides on these questions in favour of the applicant the permit may be granted provided the applicant is eligible and in case of contest, the most eligible. But in granting such permit, the authority has to indicate the reasons which weigh with it for finding in favour of the grant. Such reasons must be one or other of the reasons mentioned in S.62 (1) of the Act. I think it is profitable to extract here S.62 (1). "62 (1) A Regional Transport Authority may, without following the procedure laid down in S.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 seasonable 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. 9. The Supreme Court had occasion to consider the case of an applicant not indicating the relevant purpose for which the permit was sought and the grant of a temporary permit to such an applicant nevertheless. I am referring to the decision in A. P. State Road Transport Corpn, v. K. Venkitaramareddy & Ors. (1970 (1) S. C. W. R.617). Dealing with this question the Supreme Court said thus: "In the application which was filed by the appellant for grant of the temporary permits in Form 32 which has been prescribed with reference to R.126 (a) (vi) of the Rules no purpose has been indicated against item No. 4 which requires the purposes to be indicated for which the stage carriage permit is required. A letter was addressed by the appellant to the Secretary, State Transport Authority, on August 24,1966. Even in that letter the purpose of the reason for the issue of a temporary permit was not stated. In our opinion it is wholly futile to go into any of the points which were agitated before the learned single judge and the Division Bench or the High Court. Even in that letter the purpose of the reason for the issue of a temporary permit was not stated. In our opinion it is wholly futile to go into any of the points which were agitated before the learned single judge and the Division Bench or the High Court. There can be no manner of doubt that in the absence of any purpose or reason for which temporary permits were asked for the Regional Transport Authority should have dismissed the application in limine because a temporary permit can be granted only if the permit is required for the purposes or reasons mentioned from (a) to (d) in S.62 of the Act. In spite of every effort on the part of the learned counsel for the appellant to look for any document which would fulfil the requirement of a valid application under S.62 nothing could be shown to us which would indicate the purpose for which the appellant asked for the grant of a temporary permit." In a case where the order does not indicate reasons for the grant of permit, my learned brother Isaac J. held that such grant is bad, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court adverted to above. I am referring to the decision in O. P. No. 5285 of 1970. 10. In the case before me the application for temporary permit filed by the 3rd respondent indicates as against column 4, the purpose for which it was being sought, as "temporary permit". This I verified from the file available with the Government Pleader. This certainly is not a reason for the grant of a permit. Therefore, there was no material before the Regional Transport Authority to assume a particular need which might justify the grant of the permit. Counsel for the 3rd respondent seeks to sustain the grant of permit by reference to Ext. P4 order which mentions that the temporary permit was being granted "to meet the present rush of traffic". According to counsel, it is a temporary need. 11. It is necessary that the orders should indicate which one of the several clauses in S.62 (1) would apply to the facts of a case. To refer to 'the present rush of traffic' is certainly not to refer to a particular need. According to counsel, it is a temporary need. 11. It is necessary that the orders should indicate which one of the several clauses in S.62 (1) would apply to the facts of a case. To refer to 'the present rush of traffic' is certainly not to refer to a particular need. The mere qualification of the rush of the traffic as 'present' does not indicate that the rush of traffic is temporary or that there will not be continued rush of traffic in future. Apart from the fact that this is not the way the Regional Transport Authority is expected to speak, when what it is expected to speak about is the particular need, to uphold this order would be to accept the propriety of the Regional Transport Authority granting temporary permits without properly considering the existence of particular needs justifying such grant. That is likely to lead to abuse of the powers vested in the Regional, Transport Authorities for the grant of such temporary permits. Therefore, I do not think that the order Ext. P4 is an order which could be justified as being 6ne of grant on the basis of one or other of the reasons indicated in S.62 (1) of the Act. I therefore set aside Ext. P4 order in so far as it concerns the grant of temporary permit to the 3rd respondent. This does not preclude the first respondent from properly considering any application for temporary permit if it decides upon entertaining applications for temporary permits. 12. The Original Petition is disposed of as above. No costs.