JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner in this case is an existing operator of Jodhpur-Sardarsamand, Marwar Junction-Sojat City existing route. The respondents Nos 2 and 3 are existing operators of Jodhpur-Pipar-Khejerla-Borunda and Jodhpur-Palasani-Hungaon amalgamated route (hereinafter referred as the amalgamated route). It appears that there are 3 permits on the amalgamated route including those of respondents Nos. 2 and 3. One of the existing operators of the amalgamated route submitted an application to the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the RTA) on February 7, 1975 for inclusion of the portion of the route from Hungaon to Sojat City in the existing permits on the amalgamated route. It appears that thereafter all the existing operators of the amalgamated route made separate but identical applications to the RTA praying that a temporary extension may be allowed in respect of the route of their permits for a period of 4 months from Hungaon to Sojat City, by granting them temporary permits from Hungaon to Sojat City. This matter came up for consideration before the RTA on June 21, 1975 when the RTA decided to grant a temporary extension in respect of the route of the existing permits on the amalgamated route from Hungaon to Jagarwas vide its resolution Annexure P/3 and also directed that temporary permits be granted to the operators of the amalgamated route in respect of the portion of the route from Hungson to Jagarwas. The RTA also resolved that the matter in respect of the inclusion of the portion of the route from Jagarwas to Sojat City in the existing permits on the amalgamated route be fixed for consideration in July, 1975 after notice to the existing operators of over lapping routes. Thereupon notices were issued to the petitioner & Ors. operators of his route and other over lapping routes and an objection was filed which purports Junction existing route, including the petitioner and the existing operators of Pali-Mundwa route. The respondents have, however, submitted a photo-state copy of the said objections (Annexure P/2 on record) and it appears therefrom that although in the said objections the name of the petitioner does appear, but the same were signed only by one person, namely Mangilal. The respondents have, however, submitted a photo-state copy of the said objections (Annexure P/2 on record) and it appears therefrom that although in the said objections the name of the petitioner does appear, but the same were signed only by one person, namely Mangilal. The matter ultimately came up before the RTA for consideration on October 17, 1975 and the RTA decided that temporary permits for a period of 4 months be issued for the portion of the route from Hungaon to Sojat City and further that the proposal relating to the extension of the amalgamated route upto Sojat city be considered after publication. A copy of the resolution passed by the RTA on October 17, 1975 has been placed on record and has been marked Annexure P/6. The allegation of the petitioner is that after the aforesaid resolution was passed by the RTA on October 17, 1975 the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 submitted applications for grant of temporary permits and in those application for the purpose for which the temporary permits were required by them was mentioned as to carry passengers and temporary particular need'. After these applications were submitted, the Secretary, RTA issued temporary permits to the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 for a period of 4 months for the portion of the route from Hungaon to Sojat City. In the temporary permits so issued to these respondents, the purpose of the journey was specified as 'to carry regular passengers'. One of the temporary permits was granted in the name of Lal Mohammed, while two others were granted in the name of Baluram, respondent No.3. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the grant of the aforesaid temporary permits. 2. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the temporary permits have not been granted in accordance with the provisions of section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), as neither a particular temporary need existed nor the same has been found to exist by the RTA. It has further been submitted that Lal Mohammed died almost three years back and no temporary permit could have been granted by the RTA in his name, nor any application for the grant of a temporary permit could have been submitted by the respondent No. 2 in the name of Lal Mohammed. 3. Mr. It has further been submitted that Lal Mohammed died almost three years back and no temporary permit could have been granted by the RTA in his name, nor any application for the grant of a temporary permit could have been submitted by the respondent No. 2 in the name of Lal Mohammed. 3. Mr. Maheswari, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 raised three preliminary objections. His first submission is that there were 8 permits on the amalgamated route but only two persons, who were holding three permits, were made parties to the writ petition, while the resolution of the RTA (Annexure P/6) granting temporary permits enures for the benefit of all the existing permit holders of the amalgamated route & as such the petitioner should be deemed to have acquiesced in the grant of the aforesaid temporary permits and the writ petition was not maintainable, as other permit holder were not made parties to the writ petition. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this connection that till the writ petition was filed only three temporary permits had been issued copies of which have been placed on record as Annexures P/10, P/11 and P/12 & as those temporary permits were obtained by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 only, the grant in their favour was challenged by the petitioner in the writ petition, as it could not be known at that time as to which of the other existing operators of the amalgamated route would avail of the grant made vide resolution Annexure P/6. It is not disputed that at the time when the writ petition was filed only three permits were issued. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that the petitioner had acquiesced in the grant of permits to the remaining permit holders & the explanation furnished by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this respect appears to be reasonable. The aforesaid preliminary objection, therefore, does not prevail. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 then contended that the RTA had given notice to the petitioner and other operators of his route after the resolution Annexure P/3 was passed by it on June 21, 1975 and that in spite of such notice the petitioner failed to raise any objection and he has, therefore, no locus standi to maintain the present writ petition. 2 and 3 then contended that the RTA had given notice to the petitioner and other operators of his route after the resolution Annexure P/3 was passed by it on June 21, 1975 and that in spite of such notice the petitioner failed to raise any objection and he has, therefore, no locus standi to maintain the present writ petition. In this respect it may be observed that from the resolution Annexure P/3 it appears that the RTA had resolved to give notice to the existing operators of the overlapping routes in respect of the proposal to include the portions of the route from Jagamwas to Sojat City in the permits of the operators of the amalgamated route. The notice, which was issued by the RTA to this respect is not on the record, but from the subject matter mentioned in the objections Annexure R/2 and the resolution of the PTA Annexure P/6 it appear that the subject matter of the notice issued to the petitioner and other existing operators of his route related to the inclusion of the route from Hungaoan to Sojat City in Jodhpur-Pipar-Kheejarle amalgamated route. It is no doubt true that the objections Annexure R/2 cannot be considered to have been filed on behalf of the petitioner, in as much as although the name of the petitioner is contained therein as one of the objectors, but the photostat copy of the said objections do not show that the same were signed by the petitioner. The objections can only be treated to have been submitted by or on behalf of the person who had signed the same, namely Mangilal. However, as the petitioner had no notice of the intention of the RTA to issue temporary permits to the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and other operators of the amalgamated route, it cannot be held that he has no right to maintain the present writ petitioner challenging the grant of temporary permits to the respondents Nos. 2 and 3. 5. Another objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 is that the petitioner has mis-stated the facts and had falsely averred that he filed objections in respect of the notice issued to the existing operators of his route and produced a certified copy of such objections in support of his aforesaid submission. 5. Another objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 is that the petitioner has mis-stated the facts and had falsely averred that he filed objections in respect of the notice issued to the existing operators of his route and produced a certified copy of such objections in support of his aforesaid submission. As I have already mentioned above, the objections (Annexure P/5) do contain the name of the petitioner as one of the objections but it is apparent from the photostat copy of such objections (Annexure R/2) that the petitioner did not put his signature over the said objections. However, this fact is not very material in as much as the objections related to proposal of the RTA for the extension of the amalgamated route or the inclusion of the portion of the route from Hungaon to Sojat City in the existing permits on the amalgamated route and not in respect of the question regarding the grant of temporary permits on Hungaon Sojat City route, regarding which no notice appear to have been issued by the RTA to the petitioner or other operators of his route. 6. As regards the merits, I am unable to find anything in the resolution of the RTA to show that the RTA at all came to the conclusion that there was a particular temporary need requiring the grant of temporary permits under section 62 of the Act. A very curious procedure appears to have been adopted in the present case, namely that in the first instance the RTA passed a resolution granting of temporary permits for 4 months on October 17, 1975. Applications for grant of temporary permits were subsequently filed by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 on or about November 12, 1975. The matter in respect of the applications filed by the respondents 2 and 3 for grant of temporary permits, does not appear to have been placed again for consideration before the RTA. However, the Secretary, RTA issued temporary permits on November 24, 1975. The argument of Mr. 2 and 3 on or about November 12, 1975. The matter in respect of the applications filed by the respondents 2 and 3 for grant of temporary permits, does not appear to have been placed again for consideration before the RTA. However, the Secretary, RTA issued temporary permits on November 24, 1975. The argument of Mr. Maheshwari is that the application dated June 14, 1975 (Annexure R/1) should be treated as an application for the grant of temporary permit in favour of the concerned application and as separate but identical applications were filed by each one of the permit holders of the amalgamated route, the RTA was justified in granting temporary permits to the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 on the basis of such applications. In the first place, the application date June 14, 1975 was not on the prescribed form as is required under the Rules. 7. Moreover, even if the application submitted by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 on June 14, 1975 was treated as an application for the grant of a temporary permits under section 62 of the Act, then it was incumbent upon the RTA to have come to the conclusion as to whether a particular temporary need existed for the grant of temporary permits on the route from Hungaon to Sojat City. The resolution Annexure P/6 is absolutely silent on this aspect of the matter, in as much as it only recites that the arguments were heard & the RTA decided to grant temporary permits for a period of 4 months. Whether any particular temporary need existed and what was that particular temporary need are matters which have been left for anyone to guess. It appears that the RTA did not at all apply its mind to the facts of the case nor it came to the conclusion that there was a particular temporary need requiring the grant of temporary permits under section 62 of the Act on Hungaon-Sojat City route. It may also be observed here that in case Mr. Maheshwari's argument would have been right namely that the applications dated June 14, 1975 were considered by the RTA as application for grant of temporary permits under section 62 of the Act, then it is difficult to reconcile the fact as to why applications on the prescribed form for grant of temporary permits were submitted afresh by the respondents Nos. Maheshwari's argument would have been right namely that the applications dated June 14, 1975 were considered by the RTA as application for grant of temporary permits under section 62 of the Act, then it is difficult to reconcile the fact as to why applications on the prescribed form for grant of temporary permits were submitted afresh by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in the office of the RTA on November 12, 1975 or there about. Copies of such applications have been placed on record and have been marked Annexures P/7, P/8 and P/9. On the basis of the documents produced on record, it appears to me that it was only after the resolution Annexure P/6 was passed that applications (Annexure P/7 to P/9) were submitted by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 for the grant of temporary permits and thereafter the Secretary, RTA issued temporary permits to the said respondents, copies of which are Annexure P/10 to P/12. It may also be mentioned here that in the applications Annexure P/7 to P/9 the purpose for which the permits were required was mentioned as 'to carry passengers and temporary particular need'. It has been held in several decisions by this Court that merely reciting that a particular temporary need existed or that the permits were required for particular temporary need is not enough, but the particulars of the specific particular temporary need should be enumerated. In Gafoor v. RTA Jaipur, 1975 RLW 496 it was observed that mere repetition of the phrase that a particular temporary need existed was not sufficient for justifying the grant of temporary permits under section 62 (1) (c) of the Act. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the view that the resolution of the RTA (Annexure P/6) dated October 17, 1975 as well as the grant of temporary permits (Annexure P/10 to P/12) in favour of Lal Mohammed and respondent No.3 for the route from Hungaon to Sojat City are without jurisdiction, in as much as the RTA has failed to record a finding that a specific particular temporary need existed justifying the grant of temporary permits on the route Hungaon to Sojat City and in the absence of such a finding the grant of temporary permits cannot be upheld. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur dated October 17, 1975 (Annexure P/6) is quashed and the temporary permits granted in favour of Lal Mohammed and Baluram (Annexure P/10 to P/12) on the route from Hungaon to Sojat City are set aside. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. *******