ORDER S.K. Dhaon, J. - The petitioner challenges the legality of an order dated 12th June, 1984, passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U.P. Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Tribunal) directing the R.T.A. Nainital (hereafter referred to as the Transport Authority) to grant temporary stage carriage permits on the Haldwani - Kaladhongi - Bajania - Haldu - Kotabagh Pawalgarh - Bailparao - Bamnagar route (hereinafter referred to as the route). 2. The sole contention advanced is that the Appellate Tribunal exceeded his jurisdiction in issuing such a direction. According to the petitioner, applications for the grant of permanent stage carriage permits were pending before the Transport Authority on 12th June, 1984 and that situation obtains till date. 3. The first proviso to S. 62 of the M.V. Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) imposes a complete ban on the grant of temporary stage carriage permits during the pendency of an application for the grant of a permanent stage carriage permit made under S. 46 of the Act. By an amendment, introduced by Act No. 56 of 1969, Parliament relaxed the rigor of the said proviso and in S. 62(2) it has provided that a R.T.A. is empowered to grant temporary permits on a particular route if that Authority has been restrained from granting permanent permits by any order passed by any competent Court or Authority. It is also provided that the number of temporary permits to be granted shall not exceed the number of permits which the Transport Authority could have granted but for the order of restraint issued by the Competent Authority or Court. The other contingency provided by the Legislature is that in the event an existing permit has either been cancelled or suspended a temporary permit can be granted to fill in the vacancy caused by such a suspension or cancellation of a permit. To put it differently, a R.T.A. has full jurisdiction to grant temporary permits during pendency of applications for the grant of permanent stage carriage permits if any of the two conditions specified in sub-sec. (2) exists. 4. It is now well-settled that an application for the grant of a permanent stage carriage permit on a route can be entertained only if the R.T.A. has, in the exercise of powers under S. 47(3) of the Act, recognises that route by fixing a limit on it. (2) exists. 4. It is now well-settled that an application for the grant of a permanent stage carriage permit on a route can be entertained only if the R.T.A. has, in the exercise of powers under S. 47(3) of the Act, recognises that route by fixing a limit on it. If the R.T.A. has not exercised his powers with respect to' a route under S. 47(3), then the question of an application for a permanent permit being received and the same remaining pending before the R.T.A. does not arise. Therefore, if the Transport Authority has so far not exercised its powers under S. 47(3) of the Act with respect to the route, it shall be open to it to grant temporary permits on the route to meet the requirements of the travelling public. 5. It is again made clear that if their exists any vacancy on the route as a consequence of the action taken by the Transport Authority under section 47(3) of the Act, and applications/application for the grant of permanent permits or permit are or is pending before the Transport Authority and none of the situations as contemplated in S. 62(2) of the Act is attracted, the Transport Authority shall refrain from giving effect to the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal. 6. This petition stands disposed of finally in the light of the observations made above.