Judgment :- Shanmugam, J. The above batch of 25 Original Petitions are filed seeking for the issue of a writ of mandamus for a direction to the Transport authorities inter alia for the following reliefs: a) to grant temporary permits; b) to grant variation and pending application for temporary permit; and c) to grant regular permit and pending application for a temporary permit. 2. Thus in all the cases the main relief relates to a direction to dispose of the applications for regular permits or variation of the permit. The second relief prayed for is that the pending disposal of the application, temporary permits are to be issued. In one Original Petition, O. P. NO. 4527 of 1995, the application was directed to be disposed of by this Court in another O. P. This 0. P. is filed for a direction that till the disposal of that application as directed by this Court, temporary permits are to be issued. All these Original petitions were admitted and interim orders were granted as prayed for, ie., direction to grant successive temporary permits pending disposal of the 0. P. 3. When the above batch is posted for orders and later on for final hearing unfortunately I had no opportunity or the benefit of hearing any of the counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners after obtaining interim orders appears to be not interested in pursuing the O. P. I heard the learned Government Pleader at length. 4. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the act) that amended the earlier Act of 1939 has liberalised the grant of permits. S.80 of the Act provides for the grant of regular permits. S.87 of the Act deals with the grant of temporary permits. The conditions required for the grant of regular and temporary permits are that the applicants are entitled to the grant as against the refusal to grant any of these permits. S.89 of the Act provides for an appeal before the S.T.A.T. The consideration and the grant of regular permits are subject matter of various decisions of the Supreme Court as well as this Court. S.89 of the Act provides for an appeal before the S.T.A.T. The consideration and the grant of regular permits are subject matter of various decisions of the Supreme Court as well as this Court. A Division Bench of this Court in Private Motor Workers Industry Co-op, Society v.S. T. A. T. (1961 KLT553) held that writs under Art.226 of the Constitution are obviously intended to enable the High Court to issue them in grave cases where the subordinate tribunals or bodies or officers act wholly without jurisdiction or in excess of it, or in violation of the principles of natural justice, or refuse to exercise a jurisdiction vested in them, or there is error apparent on the face of the record, and such act, omission, error or excess has resulted in manifest injustice. However extensive the jurisdiction may be, it is not so wide of large as to enable the High Court to convert itself into a court of appeal and examine for itself the correctness of the decisions impugned and decide what is the proper view to be taken or the order to be made. Another Division Bench of this Court in T. Mohammed V. Secretary. R. T. A., Malapuram (1993 (1) KLJ 750) has taken the view that no operator could approach this Court straightaway for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the RTA to issue permit. Nor can this Court in exercise of its power under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, issue a writ of mandamus, directing grant of permit. This Court can only direct the RTA to exercise its powers in accordance with the provisions of law, and cannot itself take over the powers and functions of issuing permits. When statutory authorities or quasi judicial authorities constituted by the Legislature do not properly exercise their power or fail to exercise their power, the High Court has to make those authorities or quasi-judicial authorities to perform their statutory duties. If the operators approach this Court while the applications are still pending before the RTA, this Court cannot itself apply the relevant provisions and pass final orders directing issue of permits. 5. In spite of this clear position of law and the pronouncements of decisions on the subject, jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India is invoked for the issue of a writ of mandamus. 5. In spite of this clear position of law and the pronouncements of decisions on the subject, jurisdiction of this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India is invoked for the issue of a writ of mandamus. The obvious purpose is to get temporary permits from this Court successively till the disposal of the original applications. It is only for the statutory authorities to exercise their jurisdiction and the High Court cannot take over the functions for the purpose of issuing permits. 6. In many of the cases applications are for the grant of regular permits or temporary permits are filed and within few days 0. Ps. are moved before this Court for a direction to dispose of the applications. In few cases it is pointed out that the 0. Ps. are filed even without applications having not been moved before the Transport Authorities. In O. P. No. 5993 of 1995 it is stated that application for temporary permit was filed on 23.1.1995 and the O. P. was filed on 5.4.1995. Interim Order for the grant of temporary permit was granted on 6.4.1995. But as a matter of fact there was no application dt. 23.1.1995 before the authorities. After obtaining the interim order on 6.4. 1995 application was filed on 7.4.1995 and temporary permits were issued as per the interim order. In 0. P. No. 4527 of 1995 the prayer is for a direction to maintain the temporary operation by the petitioner till regular permit is issued in compliance with the judgment in 0. P. No. 17856 of 1994. The prayer in O. P. No. 17856 of 1994 is for a direction to dispose of his application for regular stage carriage permit regularising the temporary operation presently conducted by the petitioner. In that O. P. a direction was issued to dispose of Ext. P1 application within six weeks. Alleging that no action was taken as per the' adgment. O. P. No. 4527 of 1995 was filed and an interim order directing the respondent to issue forthwith successive short term temporary permits for 20 days each to the petitioner continuously has been obtained. Both these application highlight the abuse of process of this Court by filing O.Ps. and C.MPs. which are only to obtain orders which go beyond the scope and purport of the main Original Petition. Both these application highlight the abuse of process of this Court by filing O.Ps. and C.MPs. which are only to obtain orders which go beyond the scope and purport of the main Original Petition. A Division Bench of this Court in Varkey v. Managing Director, K. S. R. T. C. (1988 (2) KLT 1020) deprecated a practice. In that case, as against the rejection of a temporary permit, an appeal was filed before the S.T.A.T Pending disposal of the appeal S.T.A.T. directed the grant of temporary permit. The Division Bench held that it will be more profitable for an applicant to get his application for grant of temporary permit for four months rejected by the Regional Transport Authority, file an appeal and obtain directions which would enure in his favour for an indefinite period of time. Such grant will be abuse of the process of law and will be totally devoid of jurisdiction. In this case also if the authorities had disposed of the applications for temporary permits, they would have got a temporary permit for 20 days before the disposal of the applications. Original Petitions are moved and successive temporary permits are obtained which would go on for several months or even orders defeating the vague purpose of the provisions of the Act 7. The grant of temporary permits is governed by S.87 of the Act. This provision enables the Transport Authorities without following the procedure laid down in S.80 of the Act for a limited period not exceeding four months to authorise the use of a transport vehicle temporarily on four specific contingencies: % a) for the use of special occasion: b) for seasonal business; c) to meet a particular temporary need; and d) pending decision on renewal of a permit The provision makes the issue of temporary permit, which is only for a limited period. The provisional nature of the issue of temporary permit is found in the words for a limited period to authorise the use of a transport vehicle temporarily. Thus the said temporary permit cannot be issued as a continuing measure successively. The provisional nature of the issue of temporary permit is found in the words for a limited period to authorise the use of a transport vehicle temporarily. Thus the said temporary permit cannot be issued as a continuing measure successively. The Supreme Court in K. Viswananthan v. S.T.A.T. Pondicherry (A.I.R.1987 SC 73!) has held that issuing temporary permits in such situation repeatedly for a long number of years would clearly be in violation of the letter and spirit of S.62 under which such temporary permits are 'issued: hi Mr i>rS: R. T. Corpn. v. R. T. Authority (MR 1966 SC 156) the Supreme Court has held that the Regional Transport Authority cannot abuse its power by going on granting temporary permits in quick succession, in Ramachandra v. R. T. A. Cannanore (1977 KLT 262) the learned single judge of this Court has taken the view that if an applicant obtains a temporary permit and operates on the route during the pendency of applications for a new permit on the route that applicant will be stealing a march over others by that. Learned Judge also held that no direction for the grant of the temporary permit can be given pending disposal of a new permit. Even though a temporary need and a permanent need can co-exist, a temporary permit can be made only if it is possible under the Act. In P.T Govindan v. R. T. A.. Cannanore (1972 KLT 242) Subramonian Poti, J., as he then was, held that the authority has to consider whether the purpose indicated is one, which is relevant and real. If it is decided on these questions in favour of the applicant the permit may be granted provided the applicant is eligible and in case of contest, the most eligible. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the Original Petitions are not maintainable, the relief claimed is inappropriate and cannot be sought for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, the Original Petitions are dismissed.