CHANDRAKANTHARAJ URS, J. ( 1 ) THESE four petitions are filed as common petitions by existing Stage carriage operators with pucca permits on the routes Mysore to M. M. Hills and back via T. Narasipur, Kollegal, Hanur, Ramapura and Gowdalli. The petitioner in the second of the petitions has a pucca permit for stage carriage service on the route Mysore and Hoogyam via T. Narasipur, Kollegal, Hanur, Ramapura, Gowdalli and Vodikehalla. The third of the petitioner has been operating a stage Carriage service on a pucca permit between kollegal and Sagyam via Kamagere and hanur. The fourth petitioner has been operating a stage Carriage service or on the route between Nanjangud and santhemarahalli via Badanval, Kowlande, ummathur, Kuderu, S. M. Hahi and Yelandur. Ha is also operating another service on the route between Chamarajanagar and Koliegal via Veeranapura, kowlande, Nanjangud, Thagadur, Devanur, Kowlande, Ummathur, Kuderu, S. M. Halli and Yelandur. Second respondent k. S. R. T. C. applied for four temporary permits on the routes K. R. Nagar to m. M. Hills via Hanur, Mysore T. N. Pura, K R. Nagar to B. R. Hills via mysore, Nanjangud, Badavoval, Dodda- kavalande, Ummathur, Kuderu, Santhemarahalli, Yelandur, Mysore to Chennahally via T. N. Pura Road Cross, Bhugathgally Gate, Malavally, Mysore to hundimala via Tollgate, Avalika Cross, elwaia, K. Koppalu, Rathnahally, Gomatagiri, Halebeedu Bilikere, Hullahally ratnapur The reason for seeking the temporary permits was on account of ganesha and Oasara Festivals to serve the needs of the devotees. They have also added in respect of one of the routes that students would also be assisted by the grant of temporary permit. ( 2 ) BY the proceedings to the Secretary, rta. , Mysore the temporary permits were granted for the period between 27-8-1986 to 30-11-1986. Timings were also assigned in respect of all the four routes. Petitioners who oparate either on the whole of the route between mysore and M. M. Hills or on sections of the routes on which temporary permits have been granted, claim to have been affected by the grant of temporary permits and timings assigned. Therefore, they have challenged the same under article 226 of the Constitution inter alia contending that the grant was without jurisdiction and there was no need and without regrad to the existing pucca permit holders operating from Mysore to m. M. Hills and other places. Therefore, they have challenged the same under article 226 of the Constitution inter alia contending that the grant was without jurisdiction and there was no need and without regrad to the existing pucca permit holders operating from Mysore to m. M. Hills and other places. ( 3 ) I do not think these grounds are tenable. In the first place, the nature of the permit granted is one which falls clearly under Section 62 (1) of the Motor vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). That Section makes it abundantly clear that the R. T. A. concerned may grant temporary permit to be effective for a limited period not in any case to exceed four months. Without following the procedure laid down in Section 57 of the Act. In other words, that section has to prevail notwithstanding restrictions imposed by the other provision for grant of pucca stage carriage permits and the Rules framed under the act for generally maintaining the priority of pre-existing stage carriage operators. Sub-section (1) of Section 62 also provides the grounds on which temporary permit may be granted. One of the grounds is festival and seasonable traffic taken notice of as a temporary need under Section 62 (1 ) (a ). ( 4 ) IN fact, Mr. M R. V. Achar, learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly conceded that the petitioners are not seriously affected in any way by the grant of temporary permits for the last two routes mentioned above. Their grievance is only on account of temporary permits granted from K. R. Nagar to M. M. Hills as well as Biligiri Rangana Hills. That the two hills mentioned have shrines which many people consider sacred is not in dispute. That they attract crowds and pilgrims from all over the State of karnataka particularly southern part of karnataka, is also not in dispute. First of the petitioners renders service by his stage carriage service particularly from Mysore city. Similarly, others cater to the needs of the particular locality through which their stage carriages operate. None of them serve the needs of people at K. R. Nagar and hunsur area which is specifically mentioned in the order of the Secretary r. T. A. , Mysore. Therefore, temporary permits are granted to service a particular area in Mysore District not served by the petitioners or their service. None of them serve the needs of people at K. R. Nagar and hunsur area which is specifically mentioned in the order of the Secretary r. T. A. , Mysore. Therefore, temporary permits are granted to service a particular area in Mysore District not served by the petitioners or their service. The petitioners cannot make a grievance of the fact that permits have been granted on routes, a large part of which is already overcrowded. The Scheme of the 'act is such, a clear distinction is made between pucca permits or regular permits granted in accordance with Sections 47 and 48 read with Section 57 which provides a procedure for grant of such permits. ( 5 ) TEMPORARY permit is contemplated to meet temporary needs, seasonal need or for the purpose of meeting the additional traffic during festivals and other such gatherings. The legislature has made it clear that the procedure to be followed in the grant of stage carriage permits on a permanent basis, should not be followed in the grant of temporary permits under Section 62 (1 ). If that is borne in mind, petitioners cannot be said to be aggrieved at all as the duration of the permits is limited to three months in the instant cases. ( 6 ) THE next argument that the timings assigned takes away the priority of the petitioners on sections of the routes may be well-founded. But, for the reason, I have already given, such a thing is inevitable when a temporary permit is granted though for a limited period. As long as the Secretary R. T. A. does hot abuse his power for granting temporary permits indiscriminately in order to eliminate the operators with pucca permits on the routes or sectors of the routes, it cannot be said that any priority displaced for a period of three months or maximum of four months or shorter periods would affect the pucca permit holders. ( 7 ) THE presumption in law is that the temporary need is as a result of the pressure of the movement of the population generated periodically on account of seasonal traffic or additional traffic. That extra pressure of movement takes care of competition element and the timingsupset or priority of timings upset will not or should not result in the loss to the pucca permit holders. If that is borne in mind this court has to. That extra pressure of movement takes care of competition element and the timingsupset or priority of timings upset will not or should not result in the loss to the pucca permit holders. If that is borne in mind this court has to. come to the conclusion that the grievance of the petitioners is imaginary. If there is no opportunity given to the existing stage carriage permit holders to be heard before temporary permit is granted, then they cannot make a grievance after grant of permit and timings assigned. Before parting, I must not fail to notice the fact that Sri Achar drew my attention to one of the earlier decisions in regard to need for maintaining priority of pucca permit holders on certain inter state routes between Mysore and coimbatore or Erode. it is true in those cases, I have made the observation having regard to the facts of these cases that the K. S. R. TC. , which was also the respondent therein, had made a habit of obtaining temporary permits to deter the operation of the pucca permit holders on the routes. That was the reason for the observation that an opportunity may be given to the Regular stage carriage permit holders to be heard while granting permit under Section 62 (1) or assigning timings. in the result, the petitions are dismissed. --- *** --- .