S. MOHAN, CJ. ( 1 ) THE short question that arises for our determination is with regard to the inter-state route where a temporary permit is granted under Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the act'), whether the procedure under Section 57 of the act is required to be followed with reference to the counter-signature. ( 2 ) THE argument of the learned counsel for appellant (anna transport corporation limited) proceeds on the footing where Section 62 of the act alone governs the grant of temporary permit, one must have regard to that provision alone and when in the case of the grant of permit itself the procedure under Section 57 of the act need not be followed a fortiori is the case of counter-signature. Only in cases where Section 63 of the act comes into play, counter-signature is necessary. ( 3 ) IT also stands to reason, if one were to ask for counter-signature and procedure under Section 57 of the act is to be followed in relation to counter-signature, the very purpose of granting permit tor a temporary duration would be defeated by the time the applications are invited, objections are heard and orders passed. Therefore, both from the legal as well as pragmatic point of view, it is wholly unnecessary. More than above all this, under Section 63 (4) of the Act, a general concurrence is contemplated. That again would clearly show that there is no need for counter-signature at all. Even in cases where counter-signature is necessary, the procedure under Section 57 of the Act, need not be followed. ( 4 ) IN opposition to this, it is urged that no doubt under Section 62 of the Act, the procedure under Section 57 of the act has been dispensed with and that is only for the initial grant but not for counter-signature. If that was the intention of the parliament nothing would have been easier than to provide for specific contingency. Therefore, to urge that for counter-signature the procedure under Section 57 of the act need not be followed would amount one authority exercising a power contrary to what is contemplated under the act and which will result in a chaos and confusion. Therefore, to urge that for counter-signature the procedure under Section 57 of the act need not be followed would amount one authority exercising a power contrary to what is contemplated under the act and which will result in a chaos and confusion. ( 5 ) SECTION 63 (4) of the Act, merely enables a transport authority of one region to issue a special permit covering another region as well without counter-signature of the transport authority of that region. Therefore, that cannot be invoked for purposes of interpretation of the scope of requirement of counter-signature for a temporary permit under Section 62 of the act. ( 6 ) WE are clearly of the opinion that while a temporary permit is issued under Section 62 of the Act, on a route covering two states, counter-signature is necessary, however, the procedure under Section 57 of the act need not be followed. Our reasons are as under: (i) concerning issue of temporary permit Section 62 of the act is a code by itself; (ii) such a temporary permit can only be issued for anyone of the contingency mentioned; (iii) the opening words of Section 62 of the act are as follows, namely "a regional transport authority may without following the procedure laid down in Section 57". If for the grant of a temporary permit-fresh the procedure under Section 57 of the act need not be followed, the fact that the permit relates to an inter- state route would a fortiori mean for counter-signature also. In other words if for a permit itself the procedure is dispensed with, one cannot merit some other consideration for counter-signature, insisting on the procedure under Section 57 of the act. ( 7 ) SECTION 63 of the act speaks validation of permits for use outside region in which it is granted. Section 63 (4) of the act reads as follows: "notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a regional transport authority of one region may issue a temporary permit under clause (a) or clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 62 to be valid in another region or state with the concurrence, given generally or for the particular occasion, of the regional transport authority of that other region or of the state transport authority of that other state, as the case may be. " where therefore the parliament itself considered this as a wise and prudent move to grant temporary permit for the purpose of (1) the conveyance of passengers on special occasions such as to and from fairs and religions gatherings, or (2) to meet a particular temporary need, there may be a concurrence generally in nature or a particular concurrence so as to obviate the insisting of issue of a counter-signature. It really is difficult to understand how that procedure under Section 57 has to be followed. ( 8 ) THERE is great reason and Justice in holding so. Supposing, the temporary permit is for a period of one month, if procedure under Section 57 of the act is to be followed, it would amount to calling for applications, inviting objections, hearing and then the final issue of temporary permit. By then the very need for issue of temporary permit would disappear. No law can be so construed as to defeat the object or intent of the legislation. ( 9 ) FOR the said reasons, we set aside the judgment of the learned judge in sofar as it has purported to lay down the law otherwise. But we grant no relief to the appellant herein because, admittedly, the temporary permit forming subject-matter of these writ appeals no longer exists since it has come to an end by efflux of lime. Writ appeals accordingly disposed of. --- *** --- .