JUDGMENT Chandrasekhara Menon, J. 1. The Regional Transport Authority, Malappuram had decided at its meeting held on 28th March 1974 to invite applications for the grant of a temporary permit under section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the Act) on the route Kalpakanchery-Calicut consequent on the demand of the students of Kalpakanchery, Thirurangady etc. The 1st respondent applied for the same and the R.T.A. who is the 2nd respondent herein granted the temporary permit in his favour. His vehicle was K.L.D. 8103. He was operating on the above route subsequently also on the basis of successive temporary permits. 2. The temporary permit so granted expired on 2nd July 1975. Earlier on 28th May 1975 the 1st respondent had applied for another temporary permit on the very same route. On 31st May 1975, he filed an application for a temporary permit on the route Calicut-Kadampuzha as an extension of the route Kalpakanchery-Calicut., In that application, copy of which is marked as Ext, P-1 in this proceedings, it is noted as against the column Route [Area (s)] Calicut-Kadampuzha as an extension of the route Kalpakanchery-Calicut and halting the vehicle at Kadampuzha and touching Kalpakanchery in the morning and evening for the convenience of students. In the accompanying covering letter to the application, copy of which is marked herein as Ext, P-2, petitioner stated: "Since one year I am operating the vehicle K.L.D 8103 on the route Kalpakanchery-Calicut. The vehicle is operating with great loss. To get it voyable I am requesting you to be kind enough to extend the vehicle up to Kadampuzha from Puthanathani touching Kalpakanchery in the morning and evening trips for the convenience of students."� 3. In its meeting held on 1st February 1975, the 2nd respondent disregarding the objection to the grant of the permit with the extension asked for, made by the petitioner and two others granted the temporary permit subject to the condition that the 1st respondent will operate on the route Kalpakanchery-Calicut touching Kadampuzha, The relevant portion of the order of the R.T.A., copy of which is marked as Ext. P-4 states: "The matter was heard. There was objection by Janakyram Transports and Sindhu Travels through their Advocates. The contention of the objectors is that the route was sanctioned taking into account the needs of the people of Kalpakanchery and there is no necessity for the variation now asked for. P-4 states: "The matter was heard. There was objection by Janakyram Transports and Sindhu Travels through their Advocates. The contention of the objectors is that the route was sanctioned taking into account the needs of the people of Kalpakanchery and there is no necessity for the variation now asked for. It is seen that in the sector Tirur-Valanchery (Via) Kalpakanchery there are 11 buses already plying on the other hand Kadampuzha is not well served at present. The importance of Kadampuzha is increasing due to heavy flow of pilgrims to that place. As such there is a real need to grant the variation now asked for variation sanctioned subject to concurrence of R.T.A., Calicut."� 4. The petitioner who is a passenger service operator operating stage carriages in Calicut and Malappuram Districts and one of whose buses. K.L.D. 9809 is plying on the route Calicut-Kadampuzha on the basis of a pucca permit granted by the 2nd respondent herein in 1970 took up the matter in appeal before the State Transport Appellate Authority, the 4th respondent as per the appeal memo marked as Ext. P-5 in the case. The 4th respondent rejected the appeal and upheld the grant by its judgment dated 27th November 1975 copy of which is marked as Ext. P-6 herein. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Tribunal is extracted below: "It is seen that in the application filed by the 1st respondent, Intermediate stations are specifically mentioned. Intermediate stations between Calicut and Kadampuzha touching Kalpakancheri and between Kadampuzha-Calicut touching Kalpakan- cheri and the same and thus there is no difference in the route applied for or the route in respect of which the grant is made Moreover, it is seen that on 10th September 1975, the first respondent made a separate application for temporary permit to ply on the route Kadampuzha-Calicut touching Kalpakancheri. Thus the contention that the grant has been made on the basis of an improper application cannot be upheld. So far as the contention that there is no need in allowing extension of the route is concerned, it is seen that the application filed by the first respondent was sent for enquiry by the A.M.V.I., Malappuram. Thus the contention that the grant has been made on the basis of an improper application cannot be upheld. So far as the contention that there is no need in allowing extension of the route is concerned, it is seen that the application filed by the first respondent was sent for enquiry by the A.M.V.I., Malappuram. The A.M. V. I. was directed to make an enquiry regarding the necessity for the issue of temporary permit as applied for and he conducted an enquiry and reported that there was real necessity for more services to Kadampuzha and that the extension of bus service from Kalpakancheri to Kadampuzha will serve better travelling facilities. It is also seen from the file produced by the second respondent that the President, Valavannur Panchayat wrote to the Secretary, R.T.A. Malappuram on 17th July 1975. The letter is at page 31 of the file. In that letter, it was suggested that it would be convenient for the students if the bus starts from Kadampuzha and touches Kalpakancheri. It was in the light of the report of the A.M.V.I. and other representations that the R.T.A. decided to grant the permit. The R.T.A. found that there was necessity Mohan for this extension and also for the half of the vehicle at Kadampuzha. It was also found that the existing services on the route were not sufficient to cater to the needs of the pilgrims visiting Kadampuzha temple. It is seen that there art no buses halting at and starting from Kadampuzha in the morning and proceeding to Calicut. It is also seen that there is no clash of timings between the appellant's service and the service of the first respondent. It is not disputed that there is an interval of three hours between the starting time of the appellant vehicle and the vehicle of the first respondent. The order granting the temporary permit has been made by the R.T.A., Malappuram taking into consideration the report of the A.M.V.I and other representations of the Public and after satisfying that there was real temporary need for the grant of the permit, The objections of the appellant were also considered and there is absolutely no ground to interfere with the order of the R.T.A., Malappuram. The appeal is therefore, dismissed."� 5. The appeal is therefore, dismissed."� 5. The petitioner aggrieved by this has approached this Court for a writ of certiorari to quash the grant of the temporary permit as per Ext. P-4 as confirmed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in its judgment Ext. P-6. It is contended for on behalf of the petitioner that the application of the 1st respondent did not make reference to any specific temporary need which could support the grant. No temporary need arising out of one or other circumstances specified in clauses (a), (,b), (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) of section 62 of the Act was alleged either in the application or in the covering letter sent by the 1st respondent. It is the petitioner contention that the 2nd respondent ought to have dismissed the application in limine. It is also urged that the order Ext. P-4 of the regional Transport Authority does not refer to the existence of any temporary need. The need that is mentioned therein "importance of Kadampuzha is increasing due to heavy flow of pilgrims to that place" would not, according to the petitioner satisfy section 62 (1) of the Act. A temporary permit cannot be granted merely to make the unremunerative service of the 1st respondent a remunerative one. It is also the petitioner contention hat the 1st respondent had applied for a temporary permit on the route Calicut-Kadampuzha as an extension of the route Kalpakanchery-Calicut , By Ext. P-4 what the 2nd respondent has given is variation of the route Kalpakanchery- Calicut which allows the 1st respondent to ply on the route Kadampuzha-Calicut touching Kalpakanchery in the morning and evening trips with halt at Kadampuzha against the existing route Kalpakanchery-Calicut. Therefore it is contended that the grant is not in accordance with the application made by the 1st respondent. The argument is that the 2nd respondent has no power either to grant a variation of/or a permit in respect of a route not covered by the application of the grantee. It is also contended that the State Transport Appellate Tribunal should not have perused the files to see whether there is any actual temporary need for the grant. The Tribunal is entitled to verity the need from the files only if there is a valid application by the grantee. From the files the Court cannot invariably infer the factual existence of the need. The Tribunal is entitled to verity the need from the files only if there is a valid application by the grantee. From the files the Court cannot invariably infer the factual existence of the need. It is also pointed out that the letter of the President, Valavannur Panchayat dated 17th July 1975 is one subsequent to the grant. 6. In support of these contentions of the petitioner, Mrs. Sumathy Dandapani referred me to the decision of Vadakkel, J. in O.P. Nos. 3515 and 3520 of 1975 where His Lordship said that in view of the decisions of this Court it would be idle to contend that a need as mentioned in the impugned orders of the Regional Transport Authority in that cases, viz., that there was a fast growing traffic on the route would satisfy the requirements of section 62 (1) of the Act, The learned Judge also said that section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act requires the authority who is to decide as to whether a temporary permit is to be granted or not under that provision to examine whether the need that is put forward in support of an application for temporary permit is one or other of the needs falling under clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1) of that section. In that connection the learned Judge also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in A. P. State Road Transport Corporation v. K. Venkitarama Reddy and others (1970) I S.C.W.R. 617 where it was said that: "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 section 62 of the Act."� After quoting the above decision Vadakkel, J, said: "In Thozhilali Bus Service v. R. T. A. Trichur (A.I.R. 1974 Ker. 183) I had occasion to refer to the above decision of the Supreme Court and point out that even if the decision of the concerned authority is laconic and not couched in proper language, still the court would be entitled to scan the files to see whether any one of the requirements of a valid application is stated in any of documents in the files. But this does not mean that from the files the court can also invariably infer the factual existence of the need, though very often where the temporary need has arisen because of the unsatisfied demand of the public for a pucca permit which falls under clause (c) of section 62 (1) aforementioned, the same could be made out from the files. The existence of special occasions such as fairs and religious gathering as envisaged by clause (a) and seasonal business as envisaged by clause (b) are certainly matters which have to be established before the Regional Transport Authority factually; the authority has to be satisfied of the factual existence of those needs before it could take a decision under section 62 of the Act to grant temporary permit. Again, though the order is not a speaking order, if the files reveal that the R.T.A. applied its mind and that it was satisfied of the factual existence of the temporary need, taking into account the inconvenience that would be cause to the public by directing to write a speaking order (by the time a speaking order is called for, and rendered, very often, the temporary need may not exist at all, as for example, the fair having been closed or the season having ended) the court may not, though it could, interfere with the temporary permit granted."� 7. In regard to the petitioner contention that the 2nd respondent, the R.T.A. has no power to grant a variation of/or a permit in respect of a route not covered by the application of the grantee Smt. Sumathy learned counsel for the petitioner referred me to the decision in H.V. Srinivasa Murthy v. R.T. Authority A.I.R. 1975 Karnataka 126 where Jagannatha Shetty, J. held that the lines of travel between the same termini in opposite direction cannot be the same although the same distance was covered thereunder, therefore they did not constitute one and the same route. 8. I would first deal with the last contention. In the nature of the prayer in the application of the petitioner, I do not think the Karnataka decision referred to is applicable nor is there any illegality committed by the 2nd respondent in granting the permit for the route Kadampuzha- Calicut. 8. I would first deal with the last contention. In the nature of the prayer in the application of the petitioner, I do not think the Karnataka decision referred to is applicable nor is there any illegality committed by the 2nd respondent in granting the permit for the route Kadampuzha- Calicut. What is stated in the application with regard to the route is Calicut-Kadampuzha as an extension of the route Kalpakanchery-Calicut and halting the vehicle at Kadampuzha and touching Kalpakanchery in the morning and evening for the convenience of students. The Tribunal was right in holding that there is no difference in the route applied for and the route granted. 9. In considering the other contentions of the petitioner we have to understand the nature of the power to grant a temporary permit under section 62 of the Act, As the statutory safeguards prescribed in section 57 are waived while granting temporary permits, the Regional Transport Authority must apply its mind and find positively before granting permit, the one or other of the circumstances mentioned in section 62 does exist. The Authority acts as a quasi-judicial authority in the matter. It must therefore set out in its order the reasons for granting the permit. Also as the Supreme Court said in the case referred to by Vadakkel, J. in his Judgment cited earlier there can be no manner of doubt that in the absence of any purpose or reason for which the temporary permits were asked for, the Regional Transport Authority should dismiss 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 section 62 of the Act. Also as in the case of grant of pucca permits in the grant of temporary permits also, the main principles, namely the interests of the public generally and the advantages to the public of the service must be borne in mind and not ignored. As Vadakkel, J. has pointed out in the decision cited in appropriate cases the Court would be entitled to secure the files to see whether anyone of the requirements of a valid application is stated in any of the documents in the files. As Vadakkel, J. has pointed out in the decision cited in appropriate cases the Court would be entitled to secure the files to see whether anyone of the requirements of a valid application is stated in any of the documents in the files. Certainly this does not mean, as the learned Judge observes that from the files the Court can also invariably infer the factual existence of the need, though very often where the temporary need has arisen because of the unsatisfied demand of the public for a pucca permit which falls under clause (c) of section 62 (1), the same could be made out from the files. Further it might be noted clause (c) in section 62 is of a general nature. It enables the Authority to grant temporary permit to meet any particular temporary need. And as the Supreme Court has stated in the oft quoted case Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. R.T.A. Raipur A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 156 there is no anti thesis between a particular temporary need and a permanent need. There two kinds of need may exist on a particular route. The expression to meet a "particular temporary need"� in clause (c) cannot be given any special or restricted meaning. On the basis of these principles let us consider this case. In the application and covering letter the grantee put the temporary need on the basis of the convenience of students. The R.T.A. sent the matter for enquiry to the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector, Malappuram. On the basis of the enquiry he reported that there was real necessity for more service to Kadampuzha and that the extension of bus service from Kalpakanchery to Kadampuzha will serve better travelling facilities. On a consideration of all factors the R.I.A. finds that Kadampuzha is not well served at present and the importance of Kadampuzha is increasing due to heavy flow of pilgrims to that place and as such there is real need to grant the variation row asked for. On relevant factors the Authority has come to a conclusion that there is temporary need for issue of a permit. In such circumstances it is not for this Court to interfere in the matter. Moreover the appellate authority under the statute has also confirmed this decision. On relevant factors the Authority has come to a conclusion that there is temporary need for issue of a permit. In such circumstances it is not for this Court to interfere in the matter. Moreover the appellate authority under the statute has also confirmed this decision. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not succeeded in establishing that the authorities have committed any error of law apparent on the face of the record in the matter. High Court acting under Article 226 is not an appellate forum. In 1970 K.L.T. 871 this Court had said that under the scheme of Motor Vehicles Act, the jurisdiction to determine existence of temporary need is primarily vested in the R.T.A. and that function should not ordinarily be usurped by the appellate authority. Then all the more so by the High Court under Article 226. Therefore I dismiss this Original Petition. There will be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.