HARI NATH TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order granting the Temporary Permit vide order dated 2/3. 12. 1996 copy of which has been annexed at Annexure 'd' to the Writ Petition whereby the Tribunal has been pleased to grant the Temporary Permit under Section 87 (1) (c) and (d) for a period of four months from the date of grant of permit. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel points out that the permit which has been granted is to be operative upto 31. 3. 1997. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri M. R. Venkatnarasimhachar assisted by Sri A. S. P. Kumar for the petitioner as well as Sri A. S. Viswanath for the Respondent no. 2 and Sri Shivayogiswamy Learned Government Pleader. It has been contended before me by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that this permit which has been granted in favour of respondent No. 2, is illegal and one granted in exercise of jurisdiction not vested. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before me that no Temporary Permit can be granted under the Act except in the conditions which may be covered under Section 87 of the Act. The Learned counsel further submitted that under Section 87 a Temporary Permit can be granted only in case of conditions being established under the provision and for a time limit is for a period of four months. There is no provision under the Motor Vehicles Act for renewal of a Temporary Permit. Sri Achar further contended that once a Temporary Permit granted, expires after four months and then it cannot be renewed there is no question of Temporary Permit being granted or renewal in continuity from time to time. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Temporary permit could not be granted in continuation of long period extending period of four months prescribed under the Act and/or in continuation the temporary permit granted. Grant of temporary Permits in continuation extending its durability beyond four months is nothing but the abuse" of law. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Temporary permit could not be granted in continuation of long period extending period of four months prescribed under the Act and/or in continuation the temporary permit granted. Grant of temporary Permits in continuation extending its durability beyond four months is nothing but the abuse" of law. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that petitioner being a holder of a regular permit on the route from one point to the other he could not be granted a temporary Permit for another route or by extending of the route covered by the original permit in the form of a Temporary Permit. In such a case the permit holder should apply for either modification of the conditions of the permit or for a fresh regular permit for that route. Learned counsel contended that in view of the facts of the present case the permit holder should have sought the granting of regular permit instead of Temporary permits in continuation. The Learned counsel contended that the conditions and the circumstances in which regular permit can be granted are distinct from the conditions in which the Temporary permit is granted. The Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended those conditions could not be said to come within the four corners of Section 87 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is further contended that as the application for regular permit or extension of variation of conditions under the regular permit has been rejected. A Temporary Permit seems to have been granted and renewed on the pretext of pendency of application for extension of Regular permit. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner emphatically contended that no Temporary Permit could be granted during the pendency or consideration of application for grant of a regular permit or for a variation of conditions regarding extension of route for consideration. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention placed reliance on the following decisions: A VISWANATHAN v. STATE transport APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PONDICHERRY AND ANR. , AIR1987 SC 731 , JT1987 (1 )SC 369 , 1987 (1 ) SCALE249 , (1987 )2 scc63 , [1987 ]2 SCR179 , 1987 (1 )UJ621 (SC ), he also made reference to decisions of hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of THE MADHYA PRADESH STATE ROAD transport CORPORATION, BAIRAGARH, BHOPAL v. B. P. UPADHYAYA, regional TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, RAIPUR AND ORS. , AIR1966 SC 156 , [1965 ]3 SCR786. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner further made reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in case of GANDHARA TRANSPORT company v. STATE OF PUNJAB, AIR1964 SC 1245 , [1963 ]supp (1 )SCR800 and decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of ANDHRA PRADESH state ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. K. VENKATARAMI REDDY AND ORS. , (1971 )3 SCC803. The Learned Counsel further made reference to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of SANJIT KUMAR SARDAR AND ORS. v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL. AND ORS. , AIR1996 Cal 135 , (1996 )1 CALLT25 (HC ), 100 CWN489. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner made reference to decisions of this court also with reference to his contention that a Temporary permit could not be granted in favour of a petitioner on permanent permit namely the decision of the Learned Single judge in the W. P. No. 4988/84 decided on 23. 3. 1984 and to the Division Bench decision in the case of SRI GAJANANA MOTOR TRANSPORT COMPANY LIMITED v. SECRETARY, regional TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, SHIMOGA, W. A. No. 1087/84 DD 12. 6. 1984. No other case has been referred by the petitioner's counsel Sri Achar. No other contention has raised by him. ( 3 ) THE contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners by Sri Achar have hotly been contested by the Learned Government Pleader as well as by Sri A. S. Viswanath. The Learned Counsel for the respondent Sri Viswanath submitted that his Lordship the Supreme Court in the case cited by the petitioner's counsel itself namely Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation case has interpreted the similar expressions used in Section 62 of Act of 1939 namely particular temporary need and has taken the view that along with the particular permanent requirement or need of a Permanent permit, need for a Temporary Permit can also co-exists. Sri Vishwanath contended that in this decision, their lordships have further interpreted the expression "in Any case" used in Section 62 of Act of 1939 as well as Section 87 of the Act of 1988 and have taken the view that it does not mean that if the Regional Transport Authority grants a second temporary permit or a third Temporary permit in continuation then that will become illegal or invalid ipsofacts or that the permit shall always be treated illegal. Learned Counsel for the respondent-Legal Representatives contended it has laid it down there should not be any abuse of the process or provisions of the law. Such cases, if any apart, if the circumstances do require a second time temporary permit and third permit to be granted it may be granted. But at any one time when temporary permit is granted it should not be for a period more than that of 4 months in one instance. He contended that this view of the Supreme Court has not been over-ruled by any subsequent Supreme Court decision, and it operates. The Learned Counsel contends that when need for a permanent permit exists, and the need for a temporary permit can also exists. It cannot be said that a person holding permanent or regular permit cannot be granted a temporary permit. Sri Viswanath contended that the cases relied by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner. e. , 1987 Supreme Court 731 is three judges decision and no doubt it is a latter one but as the earlier four judges decision has not been considered in this case. The four judges decision of supreme Court is binding. The Learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the decision in the case of GANDHARA TRANSPORT COMPANY is not on the point involved and it is distinguishable. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent further urged that the two decisions of this court in W. P. 4988/84 and in W. A. 1087/84 are distinguishable and not applicable. Sri viswanath they contended that when the application for grant of permit or for extention of the route and the variation of the condition of the permit of the petitioner had been pending for consideration for a long time and the petitioner had come before this court in an earlier Writ petition namely, W. P. No. 24784/96, this court had the occasion to consider the matter at length and this court had taken the view that if the application for permanent or Regular permit is pending consideration and cannot be disposed off for one reason or another. It is open to the regional Transport Authority, on an application for grant of Temporary Permit to grant temporary Permit under the cover of Clause (c) or (d) of Section 87 of the Act that is the temporary need. It is open to the regional Transport Authority, on an application for grant of Temporary Permit to grant temporary Permit under the cover of Clause (c) or (d) of Section 87 of the Act that is the temporary need. Temporary needs may be of varieties and of various nature, which may also include the need of granting Temporary Permit pending disposal of the application for grant of regular Permit or grant of extension of the route and the modification of the conditions. The learned Counsel contended as in the present case the second respondents application had been pending since long for grant of Regular Permit or variation of the condition of the permit by extention of the route it was open to the Respondent No. 1 that the Transport authority to grant that permit as well in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Madhya pradesh Road Transport Corporation v. B. P. Upadhyaya. ( 4 ) I have applied my mind to the contentions made by learned counsels for the parties. The power to grant Temporary permit so far is concerned by Section 87 of the Motor Vehicles Act such a power has been conferred on S. T. A. /r. T. A. There are the circumstances and conditions in which the Temporary Permit may be granted under Section 87 of the. Motor Vehicles Act and the circumstances and conditions may broadly be classified firstly into two categories. The first categories of those conditions or grounds which have been specified and provided under sub-section (1) of Section 87. The other category of the circumstances or grounds in which the temporary permit may be granted are those that have been provided under Sub-section (2) of section 87. These two broadly classified conditions or circumstances may further be sub-classified. The conditions covered by Sub-section (1) may sub classified as per specification under Clause (a) (b) (c) (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 87. That those coming under category second may be divided and classified into two Sub-categories referred or mentioned in Clause (i) and (ii) of Section 87 (2 ). Here it will be profitable to quote Section 87 in extenso. Section. 87 of m. V. Act of 1988: "87. That those coming under category second may be divided and classified into two Sub-categories referred or mentioned in Clause (i) and (ii) of Section 87 (2 ). Here it will be profitable to quote Section 87 in extenso. Section. 87 of m. V. Act of 1988: "87. Temporary Permits - (1) A Regional Transport Authority and the State Transport Authority may without following the procedure laid down in Section 80, grant permits, to be effective for a limited period which shall, not in any case exceed four months, to authorise the use of a transport vehicle temporarily (a) for the conveyance of passengers on special occasions such as to and from fairs and religious gatherings; or (b) for the purposes of a seasonal business; or (c) to meet a particular temporary need; or (d) pending decision on an application for the renewal of a permit; and may attach to any such permit such condition as it may think fit: provided that a Regional Transport Authority or, as the case may be, State Transport Authority may, in the case of goods carriages, under the circumstances of an exceptional nature, and for reasons to be recorded in writing, grant a permit for a period of exceeding four months, but not exceeding one year. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), a temporary permit may be granted thereunder in respect of any route or area where ( i) no permit could be issued under Section 72 or Section 74 or Section 76 or Section 79 in respect of that route or area by reason of an order of a court or other competent authority restraining the issue of the same, for a period not exceeding the period for which the issue of the permit has been so restrained; or (ii) as a result of the suspension by a court or other competent authority of the permit of any vehicle in respect of that route or area, there is no adequate number of such vehicles in respect of that route or area, for a period not exceeding the period of such suspension: provided that the number of transport vehicles in respect of which temporary permits are so granted shall not exceed the number of vehicles in respect of which the issue of the permits have been restrained or, as the case may be, the permit has been suspended. " in the present case I am not concerned with Sub-section (2) of Section 87, or the conditions and circumstances ground covered by Sub-section (2 ). The perusal under Annexure 'd' reveals that the Regional Transport Authority has mentioned he was exercising powers under Section 87 (1) (d) of the Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that Clause (d) does not cover the case. The question is to be considered, it may be mentioned here that in certain respects provisions of Section 87 has been and is akin to Section 62 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as it did operate on the day of enforcement or before the enforcement of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 hereinafter referred to the 'act' of 1988. One thing is to be noted that in Section 62 by Amending act No. 100 of 1956 Clause (d) and proviso were inserted or added to Section 62 Sub-section (1) of the Act of 1939, and Sub-section (2) in its present form that is the form as was existing immediately before coming into force of Act of 1988 was introduced and inserted in Section 62 by (Amending) Act No. 56 of 1969 vide this Section 28 thereof. It will be profitable to quote section 62 Sub-section (1) in particular of Act of 1939. "62. It will be profitable to quote section 62 Sub-section (1) in particular of Act of 1939. "62. Temporary permit - (1) A Regional Transport Authority may, without following the procedure laid down in Section 57, grant permits, to be effective for a limited period not in any case to exceed four months, to authorise the use of a transport vehicle temporarily (a) for the conveyance of passengers on special occasions such as to and from fairs and religious gatherings or (b) for the purposes of a seasonal business, or (c) to meet a particular temporary need, "or" (d) pending decision on an application for the renewal of a permit and may attach to any such permit any condition it thinks fit: provided that a temporary permit under this section shall, in no case, be granted in respect of any route or area specified in an application for the grant of a new permit under Section 46 or Section 54 during the pendency of the application: provided further that a temporary permit under this Section, shall, in no case, be granted more than once in respect of any route or area specified in an application for the renewal of a permit during the pendency of such application for renewal. " ( 5 ) FROM the comprehensive and comparative study of Section 87 (1) along with the provisions (2) of the Act of 1988. It stands revealed and is to be taken note of that nothing such as the two provisos to Section 62 of the Act 1939 has been incorporated or legislated or enacted in Section 87 (1) of the Act. Section 87 (1) of the Act of 1988 upto Clause (c) has been similar to Section 62 (1) (a) to (c) of Act of 1939. Thus Clause 'd' to Section 62 (1) and the two proviso's to Section 62 (1) of the Act of 1939 were added by Act No. 100 of 1956 but in the Act of 1988 these two proviso's were omitted. This broad distinction has to be kept in view when this court has to interpret Section 87 (1) that the two provisos to Section 62 (1) of the old Act have not been incorporated in Act of 1988 while the parliament enacted Act of 1988. It appears that parliament while enacting in this Act intentionally omitted these two provisos and did not enact these two. It appears that parliament while enacting in this Act intentionally omitted these two provisos and did not enact these two. proviso's to Section 62 in Section 87. This I am emphasising because this may have a material effect or material bearing on the interpretation of Section 87 (1) and its Clauses (c) and (d ). The proviso to Section 62 (1) of Act of 1939 clearly enacted certain bars and restrictions. The first proviso specifically provided that a temporary permit under Section 62 (1) shall in no case granted in respect of any route or area specified in the application for grant of a new permit under Section 46 or Section 54 during pendency of the application. In other words, this proviso had specifically being provided to cut out something which would have in normal course been covered under Clause (c) namely power to grant temporary permit in case of the application for grant of permanent permit or extention of route in the existing permit during the pendency of their application. The legislature under Section 62 of Act of 1939 specifically provided that the temporary permit shall not be granted in cases where application for new permit or fresh permit is pending and which may also include application for variation of conditions this permit by the extention of the route. The question in the context of the new Act will definitely be what is the effect and what is the intention of the legislature revealed by commission in those provisos of section 62 of Act of 1939 while enacting Section 87 of Act of 1988. Temporary Permit shall not be granted in respect of any route as specified or area as specified in the application more than once. It provides that once and only once the temporary permit may be granted in cases or in respect of a route or area referred in application for renewal during pendency of the renewal application and not more. The legislature appears to have specifically and intentionally ommitted these provisos and not to have incorporated or enacted these provisos to Section 87 (1) of the Act 1988. The present Section 87 (1) has to be read in this context and in the context of this legislative approach where it enacted the Act of 1988 and Section 87 (1) of the Act. The present Section 87 (1) has to be read in this context and in the context of this legislative approach where it enacted the Act of 1988 and Section 87 (1) of the Act. It is one of the principles of interpretation of statute that the variation or change in the language used in provisions of the two Sections or two statutes has to be taken to reveal the legislative intent while it enacted a provision of law as mentioned earlier. That the omission to incorporate the two provisos to Section 62 (1) of the Act of 1939 while enacting Section 87 (1) of Act of 1988 clearly reveals the intention of the legislature parliament to be that Temporary permits may be granted if the situation so require more than once, but in every case when the permit is granted, the time and the duration of that permit (the temporary permit) will in one instance be for four months. A temporary permit if has been granted at one instance for a period of four months and if circumstances do prevail, and require under the authority may grant the temporary permit the second time if circumstances do so require for further a four months period, The second time or the third time also the temporary permit can be granted subject to the only condition that exercise of power to grant the temporary permits, time again should not be so exercised as to amount to be abuse of power and it so appears to be abuse of power any party aggrieved the party may challenge the grants of permit on the ground that the permit has been granted by abusing the power in the malafides way or then it is open to this court to consider the question of abuse and malafide exercise of power. But simply, because the Regional Transport Authority or the State transport Authority grants a Temporary permit for a period of four months and thereafter second or third time it grants temporary permit again for four months each which in total may result in making the period more than 4 months it cannot be taken to render the Temporary permit granted illegal, Until and unless the abuse of the process is shown on the parties challenging the grant of temporary permit. The expression 'in any case' used in Sub-section (i) of Section 62 of Old Act has been subject matter of interpretation in vary many cases. In the case of MADHYA pradesh STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. B. P. UPADHYAYA, regional TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, RAIPUR AND ORS. in the context of Section 62 sub-section (1) of the Act of 1939 by a four judges Division Bench of the Supreme Court and at page 158 their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under: "learned Counsel placed reliance on the words "in any case" appearing in Section 62 of the motor Vehicle Act which has already been quoted. It was urged that the words "in any case" mean that under no circumstances a temporary permit can be granted on any route for more than a total period 4 months. We are of opinion that the words "in any case" do not mean "in any circumstance". The section means that at any one time the Regional Transport Authority is not permitted to issue to any person a temporary permit for a period exceeding 4 months, but if the temporary need persists, as, for example, where the formalities under Section 57 are not completed within a period of 4 months, it would, in our opinion, be permissible for the Regional transport Authority to grant a second temporary permit in order to meet the temporary need. We should, of course, make it clear that the Regional Transport Authority cannot abuse its power and go on granting temporary permits in quick succession and not take speedy action for completing the procedure under Section 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act. If upon the facts of any particular case it appears that the Regional Transport Authority is so abusing its powers its action is liable to be corrected by grant of a writ, but where such abuse of power is not alleged or shown the mere fact that the Regional Transport Authority has granted a temporary permit for a second time and the total duration of the two periods is more than 4 months, would not invalidate the second permit. We accordingly reject the argument of Learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 on this point. We accordingly reject the argument of Learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 on this point. " it may also be mentioned here that their Lordships of the Supreme Court considered the various authorities of the High Court including the one of this High Court namely the decision mallasattappa v. THE CHAIRMAN, REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, bangalore, AIR 1959 My Pg 114 and thereafter their Lordship observed as under: "for the reasons already expressed, we hold that the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court in, AIR1957 Raj 162 , and the Assam High Court in, ILR (1952) 4 Assam 9 : (AIR 1953 Assam 74), as to the interpretation and the effect of Section 62 (c) of the Motor vehicles Act is correct. " this is to be noted that on the question of interpretation of question 62 (c), which is similar to section 87 (1) (c) of New Act, the view of Assam and Rajasthan High Court have been affirmed while the contrary view expressed by the Madras High Court in AIR 1948 Mad 400 by the kerala High Court in AIR1958 Ker 144 by the Nagpur High Court in air 1952 Nag 353 and this court in AIR 1959 Mys 114 appears to have been take note of and have been over-ruled. Therefore it appears that powers to grant temporary permit can be exercised from time to time and even more than once the Temporary Permit can be granted in favour of the person, provided and subject to the conditions that Temporary permit at any one time shall not be granted for a period more than 4 months and secondly, the conditions specified in Section 87 (1) or (2) thereof or either of these conditions or any of those conditions imposed, are shown to exist at the time of granting Temporary Permit. Learned Counsel for the petitioner while making the submission to the effect that the Temporary Permit could not be granted for more than once made a reference to a decision of their lordship of the Supreme Court in the case of A. VISWANATHAN v. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PONDICHERRY and ANR. have been gone through this decision, in my opinion this decision is based on the consideration of the two provisos to Section 62 of the Act of 1939. have been gone through this decision, in my opinion this decision is based on the consideration of the two provisos to Section 62 of the Act of 1939. And secondly from the decision it appears the attention of the Hon'ble Court has not invited to the decision reported in AIR1966 SC 156 , [1965 ]3 SCR786. No doubt this also will settled principles of law that if there are two decisions earlier and later and if both the decisions are given by bench of equal number of judges then latter has to prevail but if of the two decisions, the earlier decision of the same court is of a larger bench than that of a latter decision then the court has to follow the decision rendered by the larger bench, and not the subsequent decisions. Apart from that it may be profitable to quote certain observations from the decision in A. VISWANATHAN's case referred to above which will perse reveal that the decision is (SIC) on the language of proviso (1) and (2) to Sub-section (1) of Section 62 of Act of 1939. The observations in paragraph 6 and 7 of that judgment perse reveal that decision is based on construction of proviso 1 and 2 of Section 62. Proviso 1 and 2 to Section 62 (1) have already been quoted in the earlier part of this judgment and in paragraph 7 on the basis thereof their lordships observed: "7. Under Section 62 of the Act it is permissible to a Regional Transport Authority to issue temporary permits to be effective for a limited period not exceeding four months without following the procedure laid down in Section 57 of the Act. Such temporary permits can be issued only for the conveyance of passengers on special occasions such as in relation to and for fairs and religious gatherings or for the purpose of a seasonal business or to meet a particular temporary need or pending decision on an application for the renewal of a permit. The Regional transport Authority cannot grant a temporary permit for a route or area specified in an application for grant of a new permit under Section 46 or Section 54 of the Act, during the pendency of the application. The Regional transport Authority cannot grant a temporary permit for a route or area specified in an application for grant of a new permit under Section 46 or Section 54 of the Act, during the pendency of the application. That section further provides that a temporary permit issued under that section shall in no case be granted more than once in respect of any route or area specified in an application for the renewal of a permit during the pendency of such application for renewal. " what are been observed in the latter part is nothing but what is contained in and what has been provided by the two proviso to Section 62 (1) of the Act, which proviso have not to be incorporated or inacted by the parliament while enacting Section 87 (1) of the Act of 1988. In view of the change, language and ommission of these two provisos of Section 62 (1) Act of 1939 from 87 (1) of the new Act of 1988, the interpretation and the law laid in the case A. Vishwanath's can not be applied in interpreting Section 87 of the New Act of 1988. The decision of the Supreme Court in K. S. KASTURI v. SECRETARY, RTA, 1996 III AD (SC )241 , AIR1996 SC 1664 , JT1996 (3 )SC 458 , (1995 )III LLJ714 SC , 1996 (2 )SCALE900 , (1996 )8 SCC314 , [1996 ]1 SCR1085 has also referred to by the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Achar but in my opinion that decision does not deal with the question or point raised in the present case nor does it purport of lay down any law on the subject as per observations made by his lordship contained paragraph 13 thereof. In that case it was not necessary for it to go into that question since that question did not arise directly for their consideration. It may be mentioned here that their lordships were not concerned with the question of construction of Section 62 old Act or Section 87 of Act of 1988 as it did not directly arise for consideration. In that case it was not necessary for it to go into that question since that question did not arise directly for their consideration. It may be mentioned here that their lordships were not concerned with the question of construction of Section 62 old Act or Section 87 of Act of 1988 as it did not directly arise for consideration. In the absence of the two provisos as were in Section 62 of Act of 1939 from 87 (1) of Act of 1988 in my opinion the temporary permit may granted more than once if the circumstances and conditions covered by any of the Clauses (a) to (d) are shown to continue or exist. And those condition are not the creation of the authority itself to grant temporary permit amounting to abuse of question. ( 6 ) IN this view of the matter in my opinion the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner the temporary permit cannot be granted for more than once is without substance and is liable to be rejected. ( 7 ) THE Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that no purpose has been indicated in the application, as such the application for grant of temporary permit was liable to be rejected and this contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner has been contravened learned counsel for the respondent Sri A. S. Vishwanath. My attention has been invited to the application for grant of temporary permit contained in Annexure 'a' and also to Annexure 'b' in the context of column 4 of the Annexure 'a' in which the purpose for which permit is required to be indicated, is indicated as if recorded under column 4 of application. Annexure 'b' is form No. 38 with reference to column 4 purpose for which the permit is required. It will be profitable to court in extenso Annexure 'b' which reads as under: form - K. M. V. 38 "column No. 4 : Purpose for which permit is required : t) Existing route is from Shimoga to Choorikatte and back via Ayanur, Kumsi, Anandapuram, sagar and Teleguppa (1rtd ). The proposed route for which Temporary permit has been prayed for is from Choorikatte to Jog and back via the important places like Hiremane, Talavata, bachagaru, Gamategatta, Iduvani, Singote and Kargal (1rtd), Jog is a world famous tourist centre also. The proposed route for which Temporary permit has been prayed for is from Choorikatte to Jog and back via the important places like Hiremane, Talavata, bachagaru, Gamategatta, Iduvani, Singote and Kargal (1rtd), Jog is a world famous tourist centre also. On account of the modification of the Dharwar Karwar Scheme, no fresh permit can be issued between sagar and Talaguppa. This applicant, however, is a saved operator. The proposed route from Choorikatte to Jog and back a distance of mere 15 kms. however, is purely a non-monopoly route and the prayer for grant of a Temporary permit is undoubtedly in the larger interest of the harvesting season and by the by of the travelling public also. The Local M. L. A. has addressed a letter to the undersigned applicant. e. , H. G. Ravi and in the said letter, he has stated clearly that the farmers and the travelling public have been put into severe inconvenience, since no fresh permit has been issued between Sagar and Talaguppa, that the harvesting season has just commenced in the Sagar-Talaguppa Jogbelt and since these agricultural activities will continue in this belt for the next 3-4 months also, the farmers will be put into severe inconvenience if additional conveyance is not provided; and hence the desired temporary permit from Choorikatte to Jog and back, for the next 4 months, will be in the larger interest of the farmers and that of the travelling public also; and that the said Temporary permit will also cater to the in between fairs, festivals and religious gatherings also. Hence the undersigned has filed this application for grant of a Temporary permit for the period 1. 12. 96 to 31. 3. 97. However it is highly relevant to note that M/s. S. G. M. T. Company had filed a Writ Petition vide no. 24724/96 and had challenged the earlier Temporary permit granted to this very applicant on the very same route. e. , Choorikatte to Jog and back for the period 1. 8. 96 to 30. 11. 96. But the hon'ble High Court by its detailed order dated 24. 10. 1996, has turned down the contention of m/s. S. G. M. T. Company that a vehicle it covered by a pucca permit, shall not be granted a temporary permit (Para Nos. 13 and 14 of the above order ). It is extremely important to note that this Applicant. But the hon'ble High Court by its detailed order dated 24. 10. 1996, has turned down the contention of m/s. S. G. M. T. Company that a vehicle it covered by a pucca permit, shall not be granted a temporary permit (Para Nos. 13 and 14 of the above order ). It is extremely important to note that this Applicant. e. , H. R. Ravi had already filed an application before Regional Transport Authority, Shimoga, praying for an extension from choorikatte to Jog and back long ago itself; and the same, has been kept pending since the said m/s. S. G. M. T. Company had made a "false REPRESENTATION" before the R. T. A. Shimoga (as observed by the Hon'ble High Court in its above order dated 24. 10. 1996 at para No. 15 in page No. 24) and the Hon'ble High Court, lastly has held in this regard as follows: "the Hon'ble High Court, at the same para No. 15 in Page No. 23, has also held as follows: "that as variation of the conditions of the permit under Section 10 (3) may amount to grant of fresh permit in the interest of the tourist public. Pending disposal thereof to meet temporary need temporary permit may be granted under Section 87 (c) or (d) of the Act. " the Hon'ble High Court at page No. 25, has also held that M/s. S. G. M. T. Company has no locus standi also even to challenge the grant of Temporary permit and lastly has dismissed the said w. P. No. 24724/1996 of M/s. S. G. M. T. Company, WITH A COST OF Rs. 3,300/- IN TOTO. Under the circumstances detailed so far, the undersigned respectfully submits that he may kindly be granted the desired Temporary permit as per Section 87 (1) (a) (b) (c) and (d ). " a perusal of this Annexure reveals the purpose, and it has been mentioned in the Annexure that the existing route has been from Shimoga to Choorikatte and back via Bynur, Kamsi, anandapuram, Sagar and Telaganna (1rtd) and the proposed route, for which the temporary permit has been prayed for, has been Choorikatte to Jog and back. It has been mentioned to be having worlds famous tourist centre Jogfall. It is further mentioned that on account of modification of Dharwar-Karwar scheme no permit has been issued between Sagar to Telaganna. It has been mentioned to be having worlds famous tourist centre Jogfall. It is further mentioned that on account of modification of Dharwar-Karwar scheme no permit has been issued between Sagar to Telaganna. In the application it is also mentioned that the applicant is the saved operator and that proposed, route from Choorikatte to Jogfall and back is a 15 km route, which is purely non-monopoly route, and that the prayer for grant of temporary permit has been made in the larger interest of harvesting season as well as in the interest of the travelling public. A reference has been made to the latter which has been addressed by the MLA, to H. G. Ravi, applicant in which it has been stated that farmers and travelling public have been put into severe inconvenience, since no fresh permit is issued between Sagar and Talaguppa and the harvesting season has commenced the agricultural activities, continue for 3, 4 months and no fresh permits has been issued between sagar and Talaguppa, the farmers would put into severe inconvenience, if grant of additional conveyance, is not provided. Hence, it was desired that a temporary permit from Choorikatte to jog and back will be in the interest of farmer and the travelling public and will also cater the fairs, festivals. It has been mentioned that in such existing situation the prayer and application for grant of a temporary permit for a period from 1. 12. 1996 to 31. 3. 1997 has been made. It has further been mentioned in the very application that the applicant has also filed the application to rta for extension of the permit, on route Choorikatte to Jog and back long ago and the said application had been kept pending as M/s S. G. M. T. Company, it is alleged, had made certain false representation before RTA. That this High Court in order dated 24. 10. 1996 has observed that the application for variation of condition may amount to be an application for grant a fresh permit and pending disposal of that application the Temporary permit may be granted to fulfill the temporary need. Then after having mentioned the above it has been mentioned in the last part of the Annexure "b' that the undersigned respectfully submits and prays that he may actually be granted temporary permit as per Section 87 (1) (a) (b) (c) (d ). Then after having mentioned the above it has been mentioned in the last part of the Annexure "b' that the undersigned respectfully submits and prays that he may actually be granted temporary permit as per Section 87 (1) (a) (b) (c) (d ). So it cannot be said that the purpose has not been indicated in the application for grant of temporary permit. It is another question if the purpose and the circumstances which have been indicated in Annexure 'b' which is a part of annexure 'a', do come or do not come within any of the categories of the circumstances or grounds referred to in Section 87 (1) (a) to (d ). But it cannot be said that the purposes for which temporary permit was sought has not be indicated in the application. It is beyond doubt that if annexure 'd' form indicating the purpose for which permit was required Temporarily, would not have been there or purpose of Temporary permit sought would not have been indicated, as contended by the petitioner's counsel. The application for temporary permit had to be rejected following the Supreme Court decision in the case of ANDHRA PRADESH STATE ROAD transport CORPORATION v. K. VENKATARAMIREDDY AND ORS. Wherein their lordships have been pleased to observe. "in the application which was filed by the appellant for grant of the temporary permits in Form 32 which has been prescribed with reference to Rule 126 (a) (vi) of the Rules no purpose has been indicated against item No. 4 which requires the purposes to be indicated for which the stage carriage permit is required. A letter was addressed by the appellant to the Secretary, State transport Authority, on August 24, 1966. Even in that letter the purpose or the reason for the issue of a temporary permit was not stated. In our opinion it is wholly futile to go into any of the points which were agitated before the Learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High court. There can be no manner of doubt that in the absence of any purpose or reason for which temporary permits were asked for the Regional Transport should have dismissed the application in limini because a temporary permit can be granted only if the permit is required for the purposes or reasons mentioned from (a) to (d) in Section 62 of the Act. " thus, the purpose for which the temporary permit was sought has been indicated in Annexure 'b' to the application Annexure 'a'. That as mentioned earlier the contention of the Learned counsel for the petitioner that authority should have dismissed the application for no purpose has been mentioned for orders reserved to be rejected as without merits. Purpose has been indicated the only question in this context which has to be considered is whether the purposes indicated may be said to be covered or not within the frame work of either the Clauses (a) to (d) of Section 87 (1 ). ( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent laid much emphasis on Clause (c) and (d) of Section 87 and the authority in the order granting the temporary permit has referred Clause (c) and (d) in this order as well. As regards the agricultural season and inconvenience to the farmers and agriculturists and reference to their need in the application and the inconvenience caused to them on account of want of proper conveyance may be said to be mentioning of seasonal requirement for the benefit of the public dealing with agricultural activities. Whether that the ground did exist it had to be adjudged by the authority concerned but the mention of that ground or circumstances may be said to be one covered by Clause (b) to Section 87 (1 ). I may say for the purpose of seasonal business. Business is a term of wide connotation. Section 87 (1) (c) provides the temporary permit may be granted to suffice a particular temporary need and under Clause (d) pending decision of an application for renewal of the permit. This expression particularly temporary need is an expression of wide connotation. It does not confine itself to specific need. There may be varities of situation in which there may be temporary need for the grant of temporary permit. Here again it will be profitable to refer to the decision of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of JAYARAMADAS v. RTA, AIR1957 Raj 162. It does not confine itself to specific need. There may be varities of situation in which there may be temporary need for the grant of temporary permit. Here again it will be profitable to refer to the decision of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of JAYARAMADAS v. RTA, AIR1957 Raj 162. Their lordship have held, dealing with the situation where there is shortage of necessary number of vehicles on the particular route and pending consideration of the application for grant of regular permit in accordance with the requirement of long drawn procedure under Section 57 which is time consuming, that temporary permit could for this integrum period be granted by the Regional Transport Authority. The Division Branch of rajasthan High Court observed that "there was thus shortage of necessary number of vehicles on this route and RTA had thought it fit that this is temporary need till the regular permit was granted after going through the procedure laid down in Section 57, it therefore had jurisdiction in the circumstances to grant the temporary permit. " In the case of M. P. S. R. T. C. , referred to above, dealing with Section 62 (c) where the expression used is to meet the particular temporary need, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed Section 62 (c ). "section 62 (c) of the Motor vehicles Act states that the Regional Transport Authority may grant a temporary permit "to meet a particular temporary need" and we see no reason why this Clause should be given any special or restricted meaning. There is no antithesis between a particular temporary need and a permanent need and it is manifest that these two kinds of need may coexist on a particular route. If, therefore, the Regional Transport Authority considered that, in the circumstances of the case, there was a particular temporary need, and granted a temporary permit to the appellant, the action of the Regional Transport Authority cannot be challenged as legally invalid. Reference may be made, in this connection, to Section 62 (d) which contemplates that temporary permits may be granted to authorise the use of a transport vehicle temporarily pending decision on an application for the renewal of a permit. This sub-section, therefore, contemplates that there may exist a temporary need for transport facilities on a particular route even in case of permanent need for such facilities. This sub-section, therefore, contemplates that there may exist a temporary need for transport facilities on a particular route even in case of permanent need for such facilities. We are accordingly of opinion that the Regional Transport authority was right as a matter of law in granting a temporary permit to the appellant under section 62 (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act in the circumstances of this case. " the expression 'to meet particular temporary need' may be interpreted taking into consideration the light thrown by Clause (d) such a temporary need may arise in various circumstances there may be Temporary need for means of transportation being provided. If application for grant of permanent permit is pending, pending consideration for those applications either for grant of fresh permit or for extension of route in a particular route if the circumstances indicate that it may take some considerable time. Thus, no doubt looking to the circumstances it is open to the rta, to grant or issue a temporary permit pending disposal application for grant of regular/permanent permit. This view I am taking of provision of Section 87 (1) (c), keeping in view, the legislative intent that is revealed by omission of two provisos to Section 62 (1) 1939 from Section 87 (1) I am of the view and I do hold that temporary permit can be granted pending disposal of the application for grant of fresh regular permit or an application for extension of route or modification of the conditions of the permit by providing for extension of route. This interpretation I am placing is in keeping in peace with the legislative policy of the Act of liberalising the grant of permits. ( 9 ) THIS question was sought to be raised for consideration before me in an earlier Writ Petition in between the same parties namely W. P. No. 24724/96 in which in paragraph 15, I have observed as under:" 15. In the present case, firstly the authority has considered the seasonal and temporary need of the tourist public to Jog Falls and considered that this requires granting of a temporary permit for the seasonal demand. Clause (d) of Section 87 (1), in my opinion, is illustrative of the cases where the application for grant of a fresh permit or grant of a permit which may amount to grant of fresh permit. Clause (d) of Section 87 (1), in my opinion, is illustrative of the cases where the application for grant of a fresh permit or grant of a permit which may amount to grant of fresh permit. If the application is kept pending and it is not being disposed of, they may be covered in it. Renewal of permit is nothing but the grant of permit for another period. The effect of renewal of permit is nothing but something as granting a fresh permit for running the motor vehicle on the route or the stage carriage on the route during the period for which it has been renewed. This illustrates that where an application is pending for renewal of where an application is pending for grant of permit of similar nature that a case under Section 80 or 80 (3) may be covered by it. In this case also where application has been made for extension of the route with reference to regular permit already held by a person and that application is not disposed of and is pending, it was open to the Regional Transport Authority or the State transport Authority to grant the permit, but for a limited period that is prescribed under Section 87. The object of this Section is that no person should be made to suffer on one hand nor the tourist public on the other hand, if the transport authority is unable to expeditiously dispose of the application for grant of permit and for variation of the conditions of the permit. That as variation of the conditions of the permit under Section 80 (3) may amount to grant of fresh permit, in the interest of the tourist public pending disposal thereof to meet temporary need, temporary permit may be granted under Section 87 (c) or (d) of the Act. The conditions specified in Section 87 are by themselves classification of circumstances in which temporary permit may be granted and if one establishes or shows his case to be covered by any of those specified in Section 87 of the Act, permit may be granted and it may be open to the authority to consider the case for grant of permit. In the present case, the applicant's application for extension or inclusion of the route from Choorikatte to Jog falls had been kept pending and had not been disposed of on the representation of the petitioner before the Regional transport Authority on the ground that High Court had stayed the matter of grant of permit for extension. The authority on getting the information, bonafide kept this application pending. Neither the authority, nor the party can be said to be at fault if the petitioner mis-represented before the authority. The Learned counsel for the petitioner when asked whether there is a copy of the stay order, he submitted that he is not aware or he was not instructed. Such practice or such tactics adopted by the letigarits deserve to be condemned if, they are for mis-representation before the authority. Any way, when an application is made in the circumstances mentioned where temporary need had been there, in my opinion, the transport authority did not commit any error, either jurisdictional or otherwise, in granting the permit to respondent No. 3. " ( 10 ) IN the present case it was mention that application for grant of fresh permit or to say grant of extention of the route in the permit had been pending at the time when the application for temporary permit had been made and temporary permit was granted. It had not been disposed off. The RTA granted permits in the various form for the period upto 31. 3. 1997. In my opinion pendency of the application for grant of Regular permit and possibility of delay disposal may be said to be circumstances which may be covered under the category of for the purpose of particular temporary need and when I observe I really find support from the view expressed by the Supreme Court decision in M. P. S. R. T. C. , wherein their lordships are observed "pending the grant of fresh permit, the motor transport authority with a view compliance of law it is open to the transport authority to issue temporary permit. But the authority is expected to act expeditiously to dispose of that application. The view I have taken has in such circumstances been taken by Rajasthan High Court in AIR 1966 Raj 162. But the authority is expected to act expeditiously to dispose of that application. The view I have taken has in such circumstances been taken by Rajasthan High Court in AIR 1966 Raj 162. In this view of the matter in my opinion the temporary permit which has been granted in favour of the present respondent cannot be said to be illegal as it said to be covered by Clause (c) of Section 87. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was a holder of a permanent permit with reference to certain destination which does not cover the portion of the route from Choorikatte to Jog and the petitioner, being a holder of regular permit, could not be granted a temporary permit and made reference to the decision in SINGLE JUDGE's decision in this court in W. P. No. 4988/s4 decided by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. A. Swami, J. , vide his Judgment dated 23. 3. 1984. The copy of judgment has been produced before me. That on a perusal of the judgment it does not appear from the judgment that any application for fresh permit for that route or for grant of extention of permit to the route in a regular manner was moved in that case and was pending when the temporary permit was got granted in favour of Respondent No. 2 of that case. In that context of the facts the Learned Single Judge observed that grant of temporary permit without the moving of the application for variation of conditions of regular permit already granted by extention of route would be nothing but enabling the circumventing of provision of Section 57 (8) of the Act of 1939 and would amount to colourable exercises of power under Section 62 of the Act. Thus considered in my opinion. This case does not apply at ail to the facts of the present case and as such is distinguishable. The other case that has referred is the decision of the division bench in w. A. No. 1087/84 in Sree Gajanana Motor Transport Co. Ltd. v. RTA, Shimoga decided on 12. 6. 1984. Thus considered in my opinion. This case does not apply at ail to the facts of the present case and as such is distinguishable. The other case that has referred is the decision of the division bench in w. A. No. 1087/84 in Sree Gajanana Motor Transport Co. Ltd. v. RTA, Shimoga decided on 12. 6. 1984. In this decision also the division bench observed that it is not necessary to go into the question that whether the grant of a temporary permit in favour of permanent or Regular permit holder virtually amounts to variation of condition of permit without complying with the requirements of Section 57 (8) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal after taking a view and observing as under: "sri Rangaswamy, learned Counsel for the appellant, contended that the question as to whether the service virtually amounts to continuous service thereby circumventing the provisions of section 57 (8) or variation of the condition of permit, depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it cannot be stated as a matter of law that no vehicle covered by a pucca permit can be granted a temporary permit. But it appears to us unnecessary to go into the question of existence of temporary need. Even otherwise, we are satisfied that the grant of temporary permit is wholly unjustified as we do not find any temporary need having been brought to the notice of the R. T. A. " and the bench further observed that the Secretary, RTA did not apply his mind to the question of existence of Temporary need and no satisfactory finding had been recorded as regard thert in that case. Taking this view of the matter the appeal is dismissed. The division bench did not go into that question of as it may. Even Single Judge had taken the view that merely applying for temporary permit and the granting of temporary permit without taking the resort to application for variation of the conditions may amount to surcumventing Section 57 (8) if temporary permit is granted. In the present case, the application has been made for variation of the conditions by extension of the route under the permit by present respondent. In the present case, the application has been made for variation of the conditions by extension of the route under the permit by present respondent. That application is pending or say the application had been kept pending and not been disposed off, in the circumstances beyond the control of the authority and the respondent as appears from the earlier case between the same parties in respect of the same matter. In such circumstances, the application for grant of regular permit for 15 k. m. could not be considered. But RTA felt that there was Temporary need also for grant Temporary permit in order to help the people and farmers agriculturist and considering the situation and circumstances as well as observations made in an earlier Writ Petitions, the RTA considered it to be a case of particular temporary need for grant of the temporary permit as observed. No doubt need for grant of permanent permit as well as need for temporary permit on a route may co-exist. That tilt the permanent permit is not granted though the need exist there for and matter remains pending for consideration, the temporary permit can be granted in the cases referred to above. In this matters in my view the RTA has acted within jurisdiction under Section 87 (1) (c) read along with (d) is granting the temporary permit. The permit is no doubt valid upto 31. 3. 1997. It has been brought to my notice the application for variation has been rejected. This has been brought to my notice by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Learned Counsel for the respondent brought to my notice that it has been rejected on the ground which ground not material or relevant to the grant or rejection of variation. Anyway, I am informed that from rejection order petitioner has filed appeal for consideration as to whether main application has been rightly rejected or illegally rejected I do not think is proper to make any observation on that aspect of the matter as the matter is pending for consideration at the appellate stage, for grant of permit with respect to that route. Any way this permit is for a period of four months and is to expire on 31. 3. 1997. Any way this permit is for a period of four months and is to expire on 31. 3. 1997. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner also contended Annexure 'g' and 'h' are the orders in which case the temporary permit was rejected after having taken into consideration the judgment in W. P. No. 4988/84 and in W. A. No. 1987/84. The Learned Counsel submitted that Secretary RTA adopted two yardsticks in my opinion there is no substance in the contention. A perusal of Annexure 'd'. e. , impugned order dated 2/3. 12. 1996 does not show that attention of the respondent is Section R. T. A. was invited to either orders Annexures 'g' or 'h' to this petition or the decisions in W. P. No. 9232/96 dated 16. 4. 1996 or W. P. No. 4998/13084 or w. A. 1087/84. Further there is no such assertion in the petition that attention of respondent was invited to the cases referred in Annexure 'g' and 'h'. Further the case referred in Annexures 'g' and 'h' are distinguishable and in applicable to the facts of this case as found above by me. Thus considered in my opinion the order impugned dated 2/3. 12. 1996 contained in Annexure 'd' to the writ Petition does not suffer from any jurisdictional error or error of law. The Writ Petition in my opinion is without merits in substance it is hereby dismissed.