Judgment : Petitioners seek to quash the order of the first respondent dated 2.6.2006 in R.P. Nos. 38 and 39 respectively and to forbear the second respondent from granting temporary permit to the 4th respondent in respect of their vehicle bearing registration No. TN-33-N-1065 to ply on the route Kovilpatti bus stand to Kuruvikulam with IST Kovilpatti bus stand to Kalugumalai. 2. The relief sought for and the facts in both the writ petitions are identical and hence I feel it suffice to narrate the facts in W.P.No. 4914 of 2006 alone, which are as follows. • (a) Petitioner is operating a Stage Carriage bearing registration No. TN-69-V-1314 on the route Kovilpatti stand to Ramalingam (via) Kalugumalai with independent trips between Kovilpatti bus stand to Kuruvikulam with another IST between Kovilpatti Bus stand to Kalugumalai and the length of the route is 28 kms. Petitioner is operating the vehicle as a Town service route and per day he is operating 14 singles and collecting the rates as fixed by the Government. The State Transport Corporation is also operating buses on this route, No. 14 from Kovilpatti to Kuruvikulam. • (b) The second respondent granted temporary permit to the 4th respondent for the period from 2.1.2006 to 1.4.2006 to ply vehicle on the route Kovilpatti bus stand to Kuruvikulam 10 singles and Kovilpatti to Kalugumalai 4 singles. According to the petitioner, previously 4th respondent operated in the said route without obtaining any permit and hence the petitioner filed W.P.No. 2318 of 2006 challenging the temporary permit granted to the 4th respondent before this Court and writ petition was dismissed on 13.3.2006 on the ground that alternate remedy is available to the petitioner. Petitioner filed W.A.No.100 of 2006 before the Division Bench of this Court and the same was also dismissed on 17.3.2006. The Division Bench directed the petitioner to file an appeal or revision before the appropriate forum and if any such appeal/revision is, filed, the same was directed to be disposed of within 30 days from the date of filling. Petitioner filed W.A.No.100 of 2006 before the Division Bench of this Court and the same was also dismissed on 17.3.2006. The Division Bench directed the petitioner to file an appeal or revision before the appropriate forum and if any such appeal/revision is, filed, the same was directed to be disposed of within 30 days from the date of filling. • (c) According to the petitioner, in the meantime the temporary permit granted to the 4th respondent came to an end on 1.4.2006 and thereafter it was renewed for another three months from 2.4.2006 to 30.6.2006, against which the petitioner filed revision in R.P.No.38 of 2006 before the STAT, which was dismissed on 2.6.2006 and the same is challenged in W.P.No. 4914 of 2006. 3. Under similar facts and circumstances, petitioner in W.P.No. 4915 of 2006 filed revision in R.P.No. 39 of 2006 before the STAT, which was also dismissed on 2.6.2006, against which W.P.No. 4915 of 2006 has been filed. 4. The 4th respondent filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that considering the representation of the people in the villages and in order to cater to the needs of the public and to facilitate them, additional trips were undertaken by the 4th respondent for which temporary permit was granted and the Tribunal also gave specific reasons for dismissing the revision petitions considering the scope of Sections 87 and 104 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 5. An additional counter affidavit was also filed by the 4th respondent wherein it is stated that there are 26 Educational Institutions situate between Kovilpatti and Kuruvikulam route, which consist of 20 schools, 5 Colleges and one Polytechnic and more than 1,500 students, who are entitled to get free pass are travelling in the bus. Taking note of the said fact, the 4th respondent thought it fit to apply for temporary permit and considering the said request the second respondent issued temporary permit and there is no illegality in the said order. 6. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents. 7. On 29.6.2006, this Court admitted both the writ petitions and passed an interim order, which reads as follows, “There will be an order of injunction against the second respondent from granting any temporary permit to the fourth respondent after 30.6.2006. 6. I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents. 7. On 29.6.2006, this Court admitted both the writ petitions and passed an interim order, which reads as follows, “There will be an order of injunction against the second respondent from granting any temporary permit to the fourth respondent after 30.6.2006. Notice .” However, the learned counsel for the 4th respondent produced an order dated 28.6.2006 granting renewal of temporary permit to the 4th respondent from 1.7.2006 to 28.9.2006 and as such the temporary permit has been extended to the 4th respondent before granting the above injunction order by this Court. 8. It is not in dispute that 4th respondent has been granted temporary permit by the second respondent from 2.1.2006 to 1.4.2006, which was renewed from 2.4.2006 to 30.6.2006 and subsequently renewed from 1.7.2006 to 28.9.2006. The grant of temporary permit from 1.4.2006 to 30.6.2006 was the subject matter of the challenge before the Tribunal and the order of the Tribunal is challenged in these writ petitions. 9. The period for which the appeals were filed, against which these writ petitions are filed, is already over and therefore, virtually the writ petitions as on date have become infructuous as no cause of action is there to agitate as of now after expiry of the period. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second respondent is periodically renewing the temporary permit and presently the same is renewed from 1.7.2006 to 28.9.2006 and therefore the matter has to be gone into on merits since the grant of permit is in violation of Section 87 the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore, I am considering the issue on merits. 10. The renewal of temporary permit from 1.7.2006 to 28.9.2006 is not challenged by the petitioners either in these writ petitions or before the first respondent and therefore the 4th respondent is entitled to ply vehicle as per the temporary permit granted. 11. Section 87 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, empowers the second respondent to issue temporary permits and the relevant portion of the section is extracted hereunder, “87. 11. Section 87 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, empowers the second respondent to issue temporary permits and the relevant portion of the section is extracted hereunder, “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.” Section 104 of the Act also empowers the second respondent to issue temporary permits and the same is also extracted hereunder, “104. Restriction on grant of permits in respect of a notified area or notified route: Where a scheme has been published under sub- section (3) of Section 100 in respect of any notified area or notified route, the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority, as the case may be, shall not grant any permit except in accordance with the provisions of the scheme: Provided that where no application for a permit has been made by the State transport undertaking in respect of any notified area or notified route in pursuance of an approved scheme, 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 area are notified route subject to the condition that such permit shall cease to be effective on the issue of a permit to the State transport undertaking in respect of that area or route.” In the light of the above provisions, it has to be ascertained as to whether the second respondent is justified in issuing the temporary permit to the 4th respondent. 12. Section 87 empowers the second respondent to issue temporary permits for the convenience of the passengers on special occasions or for the purpose of seasonal business or to meet particular temporary needs. 12. Section 87 empowers the second respondent to issue temporary permits for the convenience of the passengers on special occasions or for the purpose of seasonal business or to meet particular temporary needs. The case of the 4th respondent is that only to meet the demands of the general public in the villages and to facilitate the students, who are enjoying 100% concession for travel, 4th respondent applied for temporary permit and the same was granted by the second respondent for the convenience of the passengers. In the light of the counter affidavit and additional counter affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, specifically stating that more than 20 educational institutions are situated and from which more than 1500 students are travelling in the bus in the disputed route, the second respondent is justified in granting temporary permit to the 4th respondent and at no point of time temporary permit granted exceeded four months. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that three times, 4th respondent was given renewal of temporary permit and this kind of repeated renewals will defeat the purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. On the basis of the said submission, the 4th respondent was directed to file an affidavit before this Court stating that it will apply for regular permit under Section 103 of the Motor Vehicle Act and the 4th respondent filed such affidavit of undertaking before this Court on 6.9.2006 and the relevant portion reads as follows, “The Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd.Madurai, undertakes to file application for the grant of permit under Section 103 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 within 31.12.2006 for the route Kovilpatti - Kuruvikulam ( via) Kalugumalai and till then the Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Ltd.Madurai, undertakes to obtain Temporary permit in the interest of public and school going children. 14. It is seen from the records that the 4th respondent has been granted temporary permit under Section 87 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 from 2.1.2006 to 28.9.2006 on three spells and the same cannot be continued for a long duration as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision in A. Viswanathan v. S.T.A.T. Pondicherry A. Viswanathan v. S.T.A.T. Pondicherry A. Viswanathan v. S.T.A.T. Pondicherry AIR 1987 SC 731 : (1987) 2 SCC 63. In the said decision, the Honourable Supreme Court taking note of Section 62 of the old Act, the provision for grant of temporary permit, held that temporary permit cannot be issued continuously for number of years by revalidation or renewal and it will defeat the spirit of Section 62 ( Section 87 in the new Act) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 15. Taking into consideration the above said position and having regard to the affidavit filed by the 4th respondent as extracted above, the 4th respondent is directed to apply for issuance of regular permit as per the above undertaking and only after getting such permit, the 4th respondent can continue to ply vehicle in the disputed route beyond 31.12.2006. 16. The writ petitions are dismissed with the above observations. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.