BHASKAR RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ appeal is filed assailing the judgments of the learned single judge allowing the writ petition. ( 2 ) THE respondent 3 is an existing stage carriage operator in the district of chitradurga. He applied for the grant of temporary stage carriage permit for the route challakere to davanagere and back to operate four single trips per day via the interior places like neralagunte, nayakanahatti, mustoor, donehalli and jagalur. The regional transport authority in considering the said application passed detailed order on 6-2-1997. One of the operators challenged said order before the appellate authority and appellate authority reversed the order vide 27-10-1997. Aggrieved by that order the respondent 3 filed writ petition. The learned single judge allowed the writ petition and directed to grant temporary permit for a period of 4 months and the same will be valid until the road transport authority undertakes to run its own buses on the route for which temporary permits are granted. ( 3 ) AGAINST that order the present appeal is filed. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant contended that the route on which temporary permit is granted is a notified route, so there is no jurisdiction to grant permit. Section 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('act' for short) provides restriction on grant of permits in respect of notified area or notified routes. According to said provision where the scheme has been published under sub-section (3) of Section 100 in respect of any notified area or route, the state transport authority or regional transport authority shall not grant any permit except according to the scheme. An exception is provided under the proviso stating that where no application for permit has been made by the state transport undertaking in respect of notified route, the state transport authority or the regional transport authority as the case may be, may grant temporary permits to any person in respect of such notified route subject to condition that such permit will cease to be effective on the issue of a permit to the state transport undertaking in respect of that route. ( 5 ) IN view of the above provision it is manifest that until permit is granted to the state undertaking, the temporary permits may be granted subject to conditions prescribed in Section 104. ( 5 ) IN view of the above provision it is manifest that until permit is granted to the state undertaking, the temporary permits may be granted subject to conditions prescribed in Section 104. As stated by the learned single judge the authority has issued 131 pakka stage carriage permits to ksrtc, out of that 46 stage carriage permits have lapsed and ksrtc is not operating the stage carriages which is causing inconvenience to travelling public especially to interior villages where there is 10 adequate transport facilities. ( 6 ) IN view of the above circumstances the direction to grant temporary permit to the respondent 3 cannot be said, is in a violation of Section 104 of the act. ( 7 ) IT is secondly contended that the temporary permit could be granted only where the conditions laid down under Section 87 of the act are satisfied. In the present case none of the conditions are satisfied. Therefore, the grant of temporary permit is illegal. ( 8 ) TO appreciate the above contention it is necessary to extract Section 87 clause (1) of the act:" (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 exceeding four months, but not exceeding one year". ( 9 ) BY reading the above provision it is manifest that the temporary permits could be granted for the purpose of the conveyance of passengers on special occasion or for purpose of seasonal business or to meet particular temporary need or pending decision of application of renewal of a permit. ( 9 ) BY reading the above provision it is manifest that the temporary permits could be granted for the purpose of the conveyance of passengers on special occasion or for purpose of seasonal business or to meet particular temporary need or pending decision of application of renewal of a permit. In the present case the permits granted to 46 buses of the ksrtc were lapsed and no buses are running and same is causing great hardship to the villagers living in interior areas through which the disputed routes exist. Therefore, there is temporary need for a grant of emporary permit as provided in clause (c) of Section 87 of the act to meet the public demand until the ksrtc restores its buses. Therefore, the grant of permit cannot said to be illegal or in violation of Section 87 of the act. ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant relied on a decision of the andhm pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v K. Venkataramireddy and others. In that case the Supreme Court has held in the Absence of any purpose or reason for which any temporary permit were asked for, the regional transport authority should dismiss the application in limine because a temporary permit could be granted only if the permit is required for the purpose or the reasons mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) in Section 62 of the act which is now equivalent to Section 87. ( 11 ) THE facts of that case are quite different from the present case. ( 12 ) LEARNED counsel also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in A. Viswanathan v State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Pondicherry. In that case Supreme Court condemned issue of temporary permits repeatedly though there is a need for issue of regular permits. In the present case the same is not the situation, and facts of present case is quite different from facts of that case. ( 13 ) LEARNED counsel also relied on the judgment of the Calcutta high court in Sanjit Kumar Sardar v State of West Bengal, wherein for non-disclosure of the purpose of obtaining permits the authority rejected the permits and Calcutta high court held non- disclosure of purpose entitled the authority to reject the permit. There is no dispute in that above proposition. There is no dispute in that above proposition. ( 14 ) IT is to be noticed that the scheme of the new act provides for issuing of permits liberally to have a competition so that best facility is provided to the passengers. Thus, the scheme of the act is to meet the demand of the travelling public and to provide utmost facilities to travelling public, if there is a healthy competition then only the quality will be maintained and the best facilities will be available to the travelling passengers. Therefore, the temporary permits are granted for providing travelling facility to the people of rural areas, particularly in a summer season when the people frequently travel on the roofs of the vehicles. ( 15 ) THEREFORE we are not able to accede with the contention of the learned counsel for appellant. ( 16 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant thirdly contended that the entire length of the route is about 104 kms and 62 kms. Length is in davanagere and 40 kms in the chitradurga district. Therefore, application ought to have been made to the authorities in davanagere and as per Section 69 of the Motor Vehicles Act. There is no dispute about the making of application to authority in which jurisdiction major portion of the route lies. Davanagere was part of chitradurga district earlier and recently they are made separate districts. Further, the question of the length of route lies in which part is pure question of fact and there is no argument before learned single judge on that point. Therefore, we do not want to interfere with the order of the learned single judge on that ground. ( 17 ) WE do not see any merits in the appeal and hence it stands dismissed. --- *** --- .