Judgment :- Radhakrishnan, J. Petitioners were operating stage carriages on various routes on the basis of the permits issued by the Regional Transport Authority. In some cases, period of the regular permits has already expired, and in some cases, petitioners are awaiting clearance from the concerned Regional Transport Authority. Pending renewal of regular permits and completion of various formalities mentioned above, they have submitted applications for temporary permits. Temporary permits were issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Pathanamthitta to the petitioners for various periods. However, on the expiry of four months' period, Regional Transport Authority declined to entertain any application for temporary permit on the ground that S.87(l)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act does not authorise grant of temporary permit for a period exceeding four months. Petitioners are aggrieved by various orders issued by the Regional Transport Authority. According to petitioners, there is no legal bar in reissuing temporary permits, eventhough the period exceeds four months. 2. It has therefore, become necessary to examine the scope of S.87 of the Motor Vehicles Act, read with other relevant provisions of the Act. 3. S.87 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with grant of temporary permits. S.87 enables the Regional Transport Authority to grant temporary permits to be effective for a limited period which shall not in any case exceed four months for the conveyance of passengers on special occasions such as to and from fairs and religious gatherings, or for the purposes of a seasonal business, or to meet a particular temporary need, or pending decision on an application for the renewal of a permit. It is also open to the Authority to attach such conditions as it may think fit to the permit. However, there is a restriction in the Section that the permit will be effective for a limited period which shall not in any case exceed four months. S.80 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with the procedure in applying for and granting permits. S.80(1) says an application for a permit of any kind may be made at any time. S.80(2) states a Regional Transport Authority shall not ordinarily refuse to grant an application for permit of any kind made at any time under the Act. A permit issued under S.80(1) has to be effective for a period of five years. S.80(1) says an application for a permit of any kind may be made at any time. S.80(2) states a Regional Transport Authority shall not ordinarily refuse to grant an application for permit of any kind made at any time under the Act. A permit issued under S.80(1) has to be effective for a period of five years. The same can be renewed under S.81 of the Act on a person submitting an application not less than fifteen days before the date of its expiry. Regional Transport Authority is also enabled to renew the permit even after the expiry of the period, if it is satisfied that the same can be entertained for good and sufficient cause. Where a permit has been renewed under S.81 after the expiry of the period mentioned in the permit, such renewal shall have effect from the date of such expiry irrespective of whether or not a temporary permit has been granted under clause (d) of S.87(1) and where a temporary permit has been granted, the fee paid in respect of such temporary permit shall be refunded. It is evident from S.81(5) that even if the period of the regular permit issued to an applicant has expired, it will relate back to the date of expiry of the earlier permit. Statute also provided for refund of the fee paid in respect of temporary permit, if any, granted during the period of the earlier permit on its renewal. 4. Application for renewal, eventhough submitted before 15 days of the expiry of the permit, seldom be entertained and sanctioned before the expiry of period of original permits, due to various reasons. On certain occasions, there will not be sitting of the Regional Transport Authority. There may also be delay in getting counter-signature from the sister authorities and there may also be some default on the part of the applicants themselves. Even in cases where the applications were not filed in time, power is given to the Authority to renew the same for goods and sufficient cause. If such applications are entertained, the same shall have effect from the date of expiry of the earlier permit. All these statutory provisions, go to show that applicant has got a right to have his application considered for renewal on merits. 5. The new Act has liberalised grant of permits. If such applications are entertained, the same shall have effect from the date of expiry of the earlier permit. All these statutory provisions, go to show that applicant has got a right to have his application considered for renewal on merits. 5. The new Act has liberalised grant of permits. Act also has simplified the procedure by liberalizing the grant of permit for private sector operation in the road transport field. R.170 of the Kerala Vehicles Rules also authorises the Regional Transport Authority to issue temporary permit without counter-signature by the Authority of the other region or regions even in cases where a temporary permit is granted under clause (d) of S.87(1) of the Act. This is of course subject to the proviso which says that the permit in respect of which application for renewal is pending is renewable. 6. All these provisions indicate that the Regional Transport Authority has got power to grant temporary permits if there is temporary need. Regular permit is granted by the Authorities only when there is a permanent need and that permanent need continues pending renewal applications. Temporary need as held by this Court in P.T. Govindan v. R.T.A., Cannanore 1972 KLT 242 can co-exist with a permanent need. Grant of temporary permits in cases coming under S.87(l)(d) obviously postulates a decision by the Regional Transport Authority on an application for renewal within the said period. Under R.123 of the Rules, Regional Transport Authority may meet once a month on such date, time and place, as may be fixed by the Chairman, and also on such other necessary occasions as may be determined by the Chairman for the dispatch of business. In many cases, it is seen the meeting is not held once in a month. In certain cases, it may meet beyond four months, with the result there will not be any decision on the renewal applications and the permit holders will have to wait, keeping the it vehicles idle. Itis to tide over such difficulties .that Legislature thought it fit in cases covered by S.87(1) (d) temporary permit could be granted for a period of four months. 7. Question as to whether a temporary need exists before issuing temporary permit is always a jurisdictional fact. Itis to tide over such difficulties .that Legislature thought it fit in cases covered by S.87(1) (d) temporary permit could be granted for a period of four months. 7. Question as to whether a temporary need exists before issuing temporary permit is always a jurisdictional fact. Temporary permit can be granted for a period for the conveyance of passengers on special occasions such as to and from fairs and religious gatherings, or for the purposes of a seasonal business, or to meet a particular temporary need. Obviously those needs are all of temporary nature. That is why Legislature thought that if a temporary permit is granted, the same shall not exceed four months. In the case of S.87(l)(d) also Legislature thought that renewal would be made within the period of four months. 8. Counsel for the petitioners referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in M.P.S.R.T. Coporation v. R.T. Authority, AIR 1966 SC 156, and contended that temporary permit could be granted for more than four months eventhough it was not continuous. Learned Government Pleader referred to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court m Maniyath Varkey v. Managing Director, KSRTC, 1988 (2) KLT 1020, and contended that there shall not be any re-issue of temporary permit beyond the period of four months. It is his case that Authority has no jurisdiction to issue temporary permit beyond the period of four months. Learned Government Pleader also referred to the decision of this Court in Aniyamma Thomas v. R.T.A. 1996 (2) KLT 17 and contended that temporary permit cannot be issued as a continuing measure successively. According to him issuing of temporary permit in such a situation repeatedly for a long number of years would be violation of letters and spirit of the Act. Reference was also made to the decision of the Supreme Court in A Vishwanathan v. STAT, Pondicherry AIR 1987 SC 731 and it was contended that issuing of temporary permit repeatedly for number of years would be clear violation of letter and spirit of the Act. 9. It is well settled that Regional Transport Authority has to address itself as to whether temporary need exists before issuing a temporary permit in the cases coming under clauses (a) to (c) of S.87(1). It is a jurisdictional fact. Only if there is temporary need, then only authority exercises his jurisdiction to grant temporary permit. 9. It is well settled that Regional Transport Authority has to address itself as to whether temporary need exists before issuing a temporary permit in the cases coming under clauses (a) to (c) of S.87(1). It is a jurisdictional fact. Only if there is temporary need, then only authority exercises his jurisdiction to grant temporary permit. However, in the case of S.87(1)(d) what the Authority has to consider is whether a temporary need exists or not, but whether an application for renewal is pending which pre-supposes the co-existence of temporary and permanent need. Under the above mentioned circumstances, the decision of the Supreme Court in M.P.S.R. T. Corporation v. R. T. Authority AIR 1966 SC 156 assumes importance. Supreme Court was considering the scope of S.62 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. While explaining the words 'in any case' appearing in S.62, which is pari materia with the present Section, Supreme Court held that the words 'in any case' do not mean 'in any circumstances'. The Section means that at any time the Regional Transport Authority is not permitted to issue to any person a temporary permit for a period exceeding four months, but if the temporary need persists, as for example, where the formalities under S.57 (of the old act) are not completed within a period of four months, it would be permissible for the Regional Transport Authority to grant a second temporary permit in order to meet the temporary need. 10. S.87 of the Act authorises the authority to issue temporary permit WR EH effective for a limited period which shall not in any case exceed four months. The emphasis is on the 'limited period', which shall not in any case exceed four months. That does mean under no circumstances temporary permit be issued after four months. If such an interpretation is accepted, even if there is a genuine temporary need, permit could not be issued to meet such a situation. The same cannot be the intention of the Legislature. The limitation is prescribed by the Statute to see that temporary permit be not issued unduly for long periods, so that the permit will have a rational relationship with the jurisdictional facts. Non-existence of jurisdictional facts will wipe-off the need for a temporary permit. In other words, the necessity of issuing temporary permit beyond four months depends upon the jurisdictional facts. Non-existence of jurisdictional facts will wipe-off the need for a temporary permit. In other words, the necessity of issuing temporary permit beyond four months depends upon the jurisdictional facts. If those facts exists, including the pendency of renewal applications, that would confer jurisdiction on the Authority to grant permits after a period of four months. 11. However on facts if 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 four months, would not invalidate the second permit. 12. Therefore, it is not correct to say that Regional Transport Authority has no jurisdiction to issue another set of temporary permits after the expiry of four months in cases where applications for renewal of regular permits are pending, unless sufficient and cogent reasons are not there for granting a temporary permit. 13. In view of the above mentioned legal position, I am of the view that the finding of the Regional Transport Authority that he has no jurisdiction to grant temporary permits on the expiry of four months to the petitioners cannot be accepted. I quash all those orders. Counsel for the petitioners submitted this Court should give a direction to the Regional Transport Authority to grant temporary permit pending consideration of their applications for renewal. I am of the view this is a power to be exercised by the Regional Transport Authority and not by this Court. As I have already held, there may be occasions where there are sufficient and cogent reasons for grant of temporary permit even after the expiry of the period of four months. It is not as if no temporary need would exist after expiry of four months. Nobody can visualise situations where temporary need exists. It is purely a question of fact which the Authority has to consider on relevant materials. 14. It is not as if no temporary need would exist after expiry of four months. Nobody can visualise situations where temporary need exists. It is purely a question of fact which the Authority has to consider on relevant materials. 14. In view of the above said circumstances, I am inclined to dispose of the Original Petitions with a direction to the Regional Transport Authority to entertain the applications submitted by the petitioners for temporary permit and pass appropriate orders within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 15. Petitioners also sought for a direction to the Regional Transport Authority to dispose of their applications for renewal. Needless to say the Authority has to dispose of the renewal applications at the earliest. In cases, where regular permit has been issued for a period of five years and travelling public enjoyed the said benefit, if the said permit is not renewed, that may affect the public interest. Hence, the necessity of entertaining the application for renewal at the earliest. Accordingly, I am inclined to give a direction to the Regional Transport Authority to dispose of all the applications for renewal of regular permit within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Original Petitions are disposed of as above.