Order This is a writ application complaining against non-consideration by the respondents of the application for a temporary permit made by the writ petitioner on 30.3.1991. 2. No doubt a temporary permit can be applied for under the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 and no doubt for periods not exceeding four months temporary permits for passenger carriage can be granted by the concerned transport authority for temporary contingencies mentioned in s. 87 of the Act. 3. What is an applicant to do in case of non-consideration of his application for a temporary permit? If the non-consideration is wrongful then the applicant is entitled to some remedy. But in my opinion the remedy is not by way of a Writ of the present nature asking the authorities compulsorily to consider the application and make their decision known. 4. The reason why a Writ application is inappropriate is this. After an application is made there must be an affidavit in opposition and then there must be a reply. The Writ also is to be heard. It is common knowledge that within four months of the making of the Writ application the same cannot be disposed of but within four months the possibility of the grant of a temporary permit for the temporary contingency upon which the writ petitioner made the application will have disappeared. A fresh situation will arise then. An application for a fresh temporary permit might be made. If that is not considered it will give rise to some fresh rights to the applicant which again cannot be enforced by way of an order for Mandamus for the same reason as above. 5. It cannot be that in every matter for the grant of a temporary permit the Writ petitioner will come to Court and the Court will dispose of the Writ by way of an interim order directing consideration of the matter by the Transport authority. It would flood the Courts with such applications which is thoroughly undesirable. 6. The applicant, therefore, is not to invoke the high prerogative writ for non-consideration of an application for a mere temporary permit. If he has lost certain rights or lost certain profits which he might have made by running his bus for four months then he is free to me a suit for damages and ask for an adequate compensation. 6. The applicant, therefore, is not to invoke the high prerogative writ for non-consideration of an application for a mere temporary permit. If he has lost certain rights or lost certain profits which he might have made by running his bus for four months then he is free to me a suit for damages and ask for an adequate compensation. I cannot see why not being able to run a bus for four months cannot be adequately compensated by money. Even an injunction is ordinarily not to be granted where compensation by money provides an adequate relief, let alone an order for Mandamus which is the highest form of injunction known to law. 7. Under these circumstances the remedy for non-consideration of an application for a temporary permit sounds in damages and such must be had by the filing of suit and not by the moving of a Writ application. 8. This application is therefore dismissed in limine but the rights of the Writ petitioner mentioned above are preserved for taking recourse to other remedies. 9. All parties concerned to act on a signed copy of the dictated order on the usual undertaking. Application dismissed in limine.