K. L. MANJUNATH, J. ( 1 ) THOUGH the matter is listed for orders, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally. ( 2 ) THE 3rd respondent filed an application before the 2nd respondent for grant of temporary permit to run a stage carriage from Kundapura to Dharmasthala for a period of 4 months from 1-4-2004 to 31-7-2004. the application filed by the 3rd respondent is produced as Annexure-A to the writ petition. In column No. 4, it is mentioned that the permit is required to provide transport facilities to the travelling public. Based on the said application, the 2nd respondent passed the order on 30-3-2004, the same is produced as Annexure-B to the writ petition. As per Annexure-C, permit was issued along with the timings on 15-3-2004. The petitioner, who is also running stage carriage permit in a portion of the route in question, requested the respondents to grant a certified copy of the order passed by respondent nos. 1 and 2, and that the same is not granted to the petitioner. On the ground that permit has been granted to the 3rd respondent without application of mind, the present petition is filed. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the application filed by the 3rd respondent as per Annexure-A to the writ Petition is contrary to the provisions of section 87 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity ). According to him, it was a defective application and such application could not have been considered by the 1st and 2nd respondents. ( 4 ) I have also perused the application filed by the 3rd respondent. It is filed under section 87 (1) (c) of the Act. "87. According to him, it was a defective application and such application could not have been considered by the 1st and 2nd respondents. ( 4 ) I have also perused the application filed by the 3rd respondent. It is filed under section 87 (1) (c) of the Act. "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) and (b) (c) to meet a particular temporary need, or (d) 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. "whenever, an application is filed under section 87 (1) (c) of the Act, it is required by the 3rd respondent to mention the temporary need for grant of permit. In the instant case, such a reason is not mentioned under section 87 (1) (c) of the Act. ( 5 ) HOWEVER, Sri K. Nagaraj, learned Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, relying upon the order passed by the 2nd spondent contends that there was a request by the travelling public to provide a K. S. R. T. C. Bus. Therefore, he requests this Court to hold that the application filed by the 3rd respondent as valid. He further contends that column No. 4 filled up by the 3rd respondent as valid one. ( 6 ) BUT, I am unable to accept the contention urged by the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent. It is no doubt true that the secretary has referred to the request made by the Travelling Public. But, there is nothing to show that such a demand was there from the General Public when the 1st and 2nd respondents considered the application of the 3rd respondent. The said application has to be considered based on the materials made available to the 1st and 2nd respondents by the 3rd respondent. While granting the temporary permits, the 1st and 2nd respondents are not expected to take extraneous circumstances, which were not available in the file. The said application has to be considered based on the materials made available to the 1st and 2nd respondents by the 3rd respondent. While granting the temporary permits, the 1st and 2nd respondents are not expected to take extraneous circumstances, which were not available in the file. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the application filed by the 3rd respondent as 'defective one. ( 7 ) IN the circumstance, this Writ Petition is allowed. The order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 30-3-2004 as per annexure-B to the Writ Petition is hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute. However, liberty is granted to the 3rd respondent to make fresh application in accordance with law and if such an application is made, the same shall be considered by the 1st and 2nd respondents on merits and in accordance with law. Petition allowed.