Short Note : 1. Respondent No. 3, M/s Vijay Motors Transport Company, Shujalpur, applied for a temporary permit for the route Pachore to Rajgarh. At the time when this application was made, the said respondent's application for extension of his permanent permit for the route Arnia to Pachore up to Rajgarh was pending before the Regional Transport Authority. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority. Bhopal granted the temporary permit by his order dated 22nd December 1977. The petitioner filed a revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal. The revision was dismissed by order dated 9th January 1978. Thereafter the petitioner filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Held : The petitioner's objection is that no temporary permit could be granted in view of the proviso contained in section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, during the pendency of the application for extension of the permit. The proviso to section 62 says 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 section 46 or section 54 during the pendency of the application". An application to vary the condition of the permit by inclusion of a new route or area because of section 57 (8) is treated as an application for the grant of a new permit. But the fiction created by section 57 (8) is only for applying the procedure under section 57 to an application for extension of a permit. The fiction cannot be extended to equate such an application to an application for the grant of a new permit made under section 46 or section 54. Section 57 (8) has been construed in this manner by two Division Bench cases of this Court: [See Hazarilal v. S.T.A. Authority (1970 JLJ 220) and M.P.S.R.T. Corporation v. S.T.A. Authority 1974 JLJ 509 P. 512]. Thus the fiction enacted in section 57 (8) cannot make an application for extension of an existing permit an application for grant of a new permit under section 46 or section 54 within the meaning of the proviso to section 62. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision of this Court in Satendra Prakash Tiwari v. S.T.R. Bhopal and others (M.P. No. 508 of 1975, decided on 19th March 1976). Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision of this Court in Satendra Prakash Tiwari v. S.T.R. Bhopal and others (M.P. No. 508 of 1975, decided on 19th March 1976). It was held in that case that a temporary permit cannot be granted during the pendency of an application for counter-signature under section 63. The language of section 63 (3), which applies all the provisions of Chapter IV to an application for the grant of counter-signature, is not identical with section 57 (8). As the Instant case is not a case of counter-signature but a case under section 57 (8), the ruling relied upon by the learned counsel does not apply. In our opinion, the Tribunal was right in holding that the grant of temporary permit was not without jurisdiction. 1970 JLJ 220 and 1974 JLJ 509 relied on. M.P. No. 508 of 1975 decided on 19-3-1976 distinguished. Petition dismissed.