Judgment :- K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. All these cases are before the, since the State Transport Appellate Tribunal is not functioning. Petitioners challenge the various orders issued by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur. In certain cases, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority has passed the following order: "Returned to the applicant since the route applied for is not in existence. He is directed to apply for regular permit on the route." In certain cases the following order has been passed by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority: "Returned to the applicant since the application for the grant of temporary permit in the vacancy could not be considered. Cash receipt enclosed". In certain other cases, the following order has been passed by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority: "Returned with a direction to apply for fresh permit since the regular permit of the vehicle is surrendered and cancelled." 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by various orders mentioned above, as well as the inaction on the part of the Secretary to pass orders on the various petitions filed by them for temporary permit. In certain cases, applications were submitted for temporary permit in the vacancy of another vehicle. Applications have also been preferred highlighting the temporary need due to Sabrimala Festival. In O.P No. 21978 of 1998 petitioner stated that the return of the application stating that the route applied for does not exist cannot be sustained. According to counsel, petitioner applied for a temporary permit on the route Kunnathangadi Guruvayur, for which regular permit was already granted, which is valid upto 26.5.2002. Permit holder, however, surrendered the permit, and in that vacancy petitioner applied for temporary permit. According to him, since the need continues. Secretary ought to have considered his application for temporary permit. 3. S.87 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 deals with temporary permits. A Regional Transport Authority is given power to grant temporary permits without following the procedure laid down in S.80, for a limited period, which shall not in any case exceed four months in the following cases: "(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". R.133(1)(j) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules enables a Regional Transport Authority to delegate its power under S.87 of the Act to its Secretary. Secretary has also got power to grant or refuse to grant the temporary permit in accordance with S.87 of the Act. 4. When an application is received for temporary permit on intra district route, a Regional Transport Authority or the Secretary of that Authority has to consider that application on merits. Question as to whether a temporary need exists before issuing temporary permit is a jurisdictional fact, and as held by this Court in Hussain Kunju v. R.T.O., Pathanamthitta, 1997 (1) KLT 476, in the case of S.87(1)(d) what the authority has to consider is not whether a temporary need exists or not, but whether a valid application for renewal of regular permit is pending. In such a situation, the temporary need co-exists with permanent need. If there is temporary need, he has to exercise his discretion to grant the permit. Existence of a temporary need necessitated grant of temporary permit. Before granting or refusing to grant the temporary permit, a Regional Transport Authority or its Secretary has to address itself as to whether there is temporary need, warranting grant of temporary permit. An element of subjectivity is always involved in the formation of such an opinion, but the existence of the circumstances from which the inferences constituting the opinion, as the sine qua non for action, are to be drawn, must be demonstrable, and the existence of such circumstances if questioned must be proved at least prima facie. 5. Supreme Court in Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 664 held that even where the statute conferring the discretionary power does not in terms regulate or hedge around the formation of the opinion by the statutory authority in regard to the existence of preliminary jurisdictional facts with express checks, the authority has to form that opinion reasonably like a reasonable person. In other words, when a statsutory authority is exercising his power, that exercise of power must rest on certain facts which would be demonstrable in the order issued by that authority. 6. Orders passed by the Regional Transport Authority or Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, refusing to grant temporary permits are appealable before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal under S.89 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 6. Orders passed by the Regional Transport Authority or Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, refusing to grant temporary permits are appealable before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal under S.89 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Appellate Authority would be able to judge as to whether the order was correctly passed or not by the quasi-judicial authority like Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, only if the quasi-judicial authority has stated reasons for granting or refusing to grant permits. Regional Transport Authority, or Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, is not expected to write a detailed order. But the order should disclose some facts so as to demonstrate that the authority has applied its mind. In one of the cases, Secretary has returned the application stating that application for the grant of temporary permit in the vacancy could not be considered. He has not stated in the order why the application should not be considered. There may be situations where the application has been made in the defaulted vacancy or surrendered vacancy. Applications for temporary permit are also being filed after submitting the applications for regular permit. Pending renewal of regular permit, applications for temporary permits are being filed. We can also visualise a situation of no temporary need by virtue of large number of vehicles operating, whereby the route is saturated and over-crowded. Authority may therefore, refuse temporary permit. Non-existence of jurisdictional facts would therefore, wipe off the need for a temporary permit. There cannot be any hard and fast rue and in what circumstances it should be granted or refused. Secretary has to exercise his power reasonably and justly. Order issued however should reveal reasons for granting or refusing to grant permit, so that the appellate authority would be in a better position to appreciate the reasons, which prompted the authority to form its opinion. 7. Regional Transport Authority, or Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, may receive large number of applications for temporary permits. It may not be possible for the Secretary to issue permit to all the applicants. When applications are received, Secretary, Regional Transport Authority is obliged to entertain the applications strictly in accordance with priority leaving no room for complaints. In certain cases, operators file applications before the Secretary and straightaway come to the High Court, and get an order for disposal of their applications. When applications are received, Secretary, Regional Transport Authority is obliged to entertain the applications strictly in accordance with priority leaving no room for complaints. In certain cases, operators file applications before the Secretary and straightaway come to the High Court, and get an order for disposal of their applications. Very many persons who have submitted their applications, and are waiting in the queue, could not afford to approach this Court, and consequently could not get any direction. Rights of those persons are affected even though they have submitted their applications earlier. It is unjust to defeat their rights. I am of the view that Secretary, Regional Transport Authorities should keep a register and enter the applications received date-wise. Therefore, applications could be considered strictly on the basis of priority without any room for complaint. If the number of applications are so large for a particular route and received on the same date, they could be even selected by way of lots. 8. I find that the reasons stated by the Secretary cannot be sustained. In certain cases no reason have been stated. Therefore, I direct the Secretary to reconsider the applications afresh strictly in accordance with priority. In case he is refusing to grant permit, he should state the reasons. Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, would entertain all the applications received till date following priority, and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Original Petitions are disposed of as above. Communicate a copy of this judgment to the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Thrissur, forthwith for due compliance. Communicate a copy of this judgment to the Regional Transport Authorities of all Districts for information and compliance.