GUPTA, J.—The case was fixed for orders on stay application today, but on the request of the learned counsel for the parties the main writ petition was taken up for hearing. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. A temporary permit was granted to the respondent No. 3 on Ajmer-Pisangan via Pushkar, Nand, Picholia route by the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur by its order dated December 24, 1974. A revision filed by the petitioner, who is the existing operator of the aforesaid route, before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur was dismissed. In the present writ petition challenging the grant of the aforesaid temporary permit to the respondent No. 3 the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Transport Authorities did not come to the conclusion that there was a particular temporary need within the meaning of Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as The Act) and as such the grant of a temporary permit to the respondent No. 3 was invalid and void. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 on the other hand argued that a temporary need may co-exist with a permanent need and placed reliance on the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in The Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Cor-poration, Bairagarh, Bhopal (M.P.) vs. B. P. Upadhyaya, Regional Transport Authority, Raipur, and others (l). Learned counsel for the petitioner however submitted that that may be so, but it is not necessary in each and every case where a vacancy existed that a temporary need also arose simultaneously. He placed reliance on Raipur Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur and Others (2) in support of his submission. Learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that in the application for the grant of a temporary permit the respondent No. 3 Stated in column No. 4 that the temporary permit was desired for the purpose of to carry regular service, which could not be termed as temporary need within the meaning of sec. 62 of the Act. Reliance has been placed in support of this contention, upon the decision of this Court in Mohammed Yunus vs. Regional Transport Authority & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1869 of 1970, decided on October 26, 1970) and an unreported judgment of the Superme Court in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. K. Venkataramireddy (3). 62 of the Act. Reliance has been placed in support of this contention, upon the decision of this Court in Mohammed Yunus vs. Regional Transport Authority & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1869 of 1970, decided on October 26, 1970) and an unreported judgment of the Superme Court in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. K. Venkataramireddy (3). 4. I have considered the rival contentions. From a perusal of the order of the Regional Transport Authority is clearly emerges that the only reason assigned by it for the grant of a temporary permit to the Respondent No. 3 was that there was a vacancy of one permit on the route. From the mere fact that a vacancy existed on the route, the Regional Transport Authority arrived at the conclusion that along with the permanent need there was also a temporary need, which was required to be filled in by the grant of a temporary permit. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal also expressed the same opinion and observed that a temporary need could be presumed to exist in the circumstances of the case. It was necessary before a temporary permit could have been granted that the Regional Transport Authority should have came to a firm conclusion that a temporary need within the meaning of one of the Clauses (a) to (b) of Section 62(1) of the Act existed. The mere existence of a permanent need does not in each and every case necessarily lead to the conclusion that a temporary need also simultaneously exists on a route, although there is no doubt that a temporary need may also co-exist along with a permanent need, provided the circumstances lead to that conclusion as held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in The Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Bairagarh, Bhopal case (1). It is difficult to conceive that a temporary permit may be granted only for the purpose of enabling a vehicle to pay in rotation with another vehicle already plying on a non-temporary permit on the route. In the application for the grant of a temporary, permit the respondent No. 3 mentioned that the temporary permit was desired by her to carry regular service, which does not come within any of the clauses of Section 62(i) of the Act and does not constitute a temporary need at all. 5. In the application for the grant of a temporary, permit the respondent No. 3 mentioned that the temporary permit was desired by her to carry regular service, which does not come within any of the clauses of Section 62(i) of the Act and does not constitute a temporary need at all. 5. In Mohammad Yunusa case, this Court definitely took the view that merely because there were vacancies existing on the route, a temporary permit could not be granted and that to run a regular bus service is not a temporary need. I respectfully agree with the view taken in the aforesaid case. In Raipur Transport Companys case(2) it was held that whenever there is a permanent need, a temporary need cannot always be presumed or implied. There must be some other circumstances in existence, in addition to the mere existence of a vacancy, from which the Trans-port Authorities may come to the conclusion that there was a particular temporary need, besides there being a permanent need. In Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporations case (3) their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to observe : "There can be no manner of doubt that in the absence of any purpose or reason for which termporary permits were asked for the Regional Transport Authority should have dismissed the application in limini because a temporary permit can be granted only if the permit is required for the purpose or reason mentioned from (a) to (d) in sec. 62 of the Act". The purpose mentioned in the application of the respondent No. 3 of running bus service is no purpose within the meaning of any of the clauses of sec. 62(1) of the Act and, therefore, no temporary permit could have been granted by the Regional Transport Authority on such an application. Moreover, the order of the Regional Transport Authority does not show that any other circumstance was taken by it into consideration, besides the mere existence of a vacancy on the route, to come to the conclusion that there was a temporary need. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal also did not take into consideration any other circumstance, besides the existence of a vacancy, which could lead it to the conclusion that a particular temporary need existed on the route at the relevant time. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal also did not take into consideration any other circumstance, besides the existence of a vacancy, which could lead it to the conclusion that a particular temporary need existed on the route at the relevant time. The conclusion arrived at by the Appellate Tribunal that til the permanent vancancy was filled up, it was natural that a temporary need existed, is merely based on presumption and conjecture. In these circumstances, the grant of temporary permit to the respondent No. 3 is apparently erroneous and cannot be upheld as no particular temporary need has been shown to exist on the aforesaid route. 6 The result is, that the order of the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur dated December 24, 1974 and the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur dated January 24, 1974 are quashed and the temporary permit granted to the respondent No. 3 on the aforesaid route is set aside. The writ petition is allowed as indicated above. The parties are left to bear their own costs. @@@@@ Editor : Dharma Vir Kalia, B.A., L.L.B., Advocate BOARD OF REVENUE, 1 975 CHAIRMEN Shri G. L. Mehta Shri G. S. Gupta MEMBERS i | Shri C. S. Gupta Shri Brij Raj Bahadur Shri J. S. Singhvi Shri R. Mookerjee Shri K. S. Ujwal Shri D. S.Joseph Shri D. K. Vyas Shri Mangal Bihari Shri A. L. Roongta Shri M. N. Pancholi Shri P. D. Kudal Shri K. S. Lodha TABLE Ol Abdul Hamid & Co. vs. State of Rajasthan Bakta Ram vs. State of Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Officer, Alwar vs. Durgadas Kamra Jaga Ram vs. State of Rajasthan CASES REPORTED Nand Kishore vs. Ram Sukha 17. Nathu vs. Sanwla 6. State vs. Mathura Lal Sugni (Mst.) vs. Shafi Uma vs. Kajor . 21 SUBJECT INDEX (Revenue Supplement) 1975 Land Revenue Act— — Secs. 10 and 77—An appeal will lie if decision does not fall under the bar of sec. 77. 1 —Sec. 11 and Tenancy Act, Sec. 183 — Division Bench bound by decision of Larger Bench. 24 —Sec. 83—Board has no jurisdiction under the circumstances of the case to exercise its delegated power. 36 —Sec. 86, proviso 3 —Period of limitation applicable only between private parties and between a private party and State. 21 —Sec. 261—Board not competent to examine vires of the rules framed under sec. 261. 24 —Sec. 83—Board has no jurisdiction under the circumstances of the case to exercise its delegated power. 36 —Sec. 86, proviso 3 —Period of limitation applicable only between private parties and between a private party and State. 21 —Sec. 261—Board not competent to examine vires of the rules framed under sec. 261. 6 Reference by Single Bench to Larger Bench—Where question referred already covered by previous decisions of Division Bench reference not competent. 40 Sales Tax Act— -Notification dated 11-1-1967— Sales Tax on Gota, Kinari etc at 2% chargeable only where dealer had specifically so charged before the date of notification and not otherwise. 17 —Sec. 14(1) — Assessing authority may file revision if it is aggrieved by order of appellate court and not otherwise. 31 Tenancy Act, Sec. 225 and Civil P.C., Sec. 47—Orders under sec. 47 passed in relation to matters under Tenancy Act are decrees. 27