JUDGMENT : This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 22/4/17 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior in Revision No. 90/17. 2. Facts relevant and necessary for disposal of this petition are in narrow compass. 3. Petitioner holds an inter-state stage carriage permit from Satna to Kanpur issued under section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act"). Such permits are required to be countersigned by both the States under section 88(1) of the Act, second proviso to which provides for corridor passage and reads as under:- "Provided further that where both the starting point and the terminal point of a route are situate within the same State, but part of such route lies in any other State and the length of such part does not exceed sixteen kilometers, the permit shall be valid in the other State in respect of that part of the route which is in that other State notwithstanding that such permit has not been countersigned by the State Transport authority or the Regional Transport Authority of that other State" 4. There is an inter-state agreement (Annexure P/3) between the State of Madhya Pradesh and the State of Uttar Pradesh for regulating plying of stage carriages on inter-state routes. 5. The controversy involved in the instant case revolves around the question as to whether the competent Authority in the State of Madhya Pradesh has jurisdiction to issue temporary stage carriage permit under section 87 of the Act for the destination of which starting point is Satna and terminal point is Nardaha also falling in the State of Madhya Pradesh, though covering an area of 6 kms. falling in the State of Uttar Pradesh? 6. The Revisional Authority relying upon the aforesaid proviso and clause (7) of the inter-state agreement has opined that neither under the Act nor under the aforesaid agreement, there is prohibition against issuance of temporary permit by the State of Madhya Pradesh for destinations falling within Madhya Pradesh covered under proviso to section 88. The agreement also does not contemplate fixed number of permits which can be issued on an inter-state route. Instead it provides that for issuance of stage carriage permits of such routes, there shall be no requirement of counter-signatures. The agreement also does not contemplate fixed number of permits which can be issued on an inter-state route. Instead it provides that for issuance of stage carriage permits of such routes, there shall be no requirement of counter-signatures. Therefore, no exception could be taken to the temporary stage carriage permit issued to respondent no.3 from Satna to Nardaha. 7. Shri H.D. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri R.D. Sharma and Shri Santosh Agrawal, Advocates, criticizing the aforesaid order, submits that once the inter-state route is notified and for regulation of such inter-state route; stage carriage permits and buses plying thereon agreement (Annexure P/3) has been entered into, the State Transport Authority has no jurisdiction to issue temporary permits. Learned counsel relies upon judgment of Allahabad High Court referred to in the judgment of this Court in the case of Kashmiri Lal v. State of M.P., 2015 (2) MPLJ 245 to bolster his submissions. In the alternative, learned counsel contends that even assuming that the State Transport Authority has jurisdiction to issue temporary permits, then also, until and unless requirement of section 87 of the Act is fulfilled, the exercise of power to issue temporary permits in succession, in fact and in effect, tantamounts to fraud on power and is an instance of color able exercise of power. The Authority is required to record its satisfaction objectively upon consideration of relevant factors enumerated in section 87 of the Act while issuing temporary permits. In the instant case, the State Transport Authority has not applied its mind in the matter of issuance of stage carriage permits. In any case, since the temporary permit issued to respondent no.3 on 9/2/17 is coming to end on 31/5/17, the Authority must apply its mind before issuing further temporary permits under section 87 of the Act, as petitioner apprehends that such recourse is likely to be adopted by respondent no. 3 immediately after expiry of present temporary permit. 8. Per contra Shri Praveen Newaskar, learned Government Advocate contends that section 87 of the Act deals with temporary permits and empowers the Regional Transport Authority and State Transport Authority to issue temporary permits without following the procedure laid down in section 80 of the Act for the period not exceeding four months under certain eventualities defined in sub clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of section 87. As such, there is no statutory bar for the competent Authority in issuing temporary permits even for inter-state routes if the permit is issued for the route falling within the scope of second proviso to section 88 of the Act. In the instant case, temporary permit in question is from Satna to Nardaha; both the points falling within the State of Madhya Pradesh though covering an area of 6 Kms. falling in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Hence, the transport Authority was well within its jurisdiction to issue temporary permit to meet the temporary need under section 87(c) of the Act. Learned counsel further contends that a stage carriage permit holder cannot claim monopoly asserting that even for the routes falling in second proviso to section 88, the State lacks authority to issue temporary permits. Such is neither the intendment of the Act nor satisfies the test of reasonableness. Learned counsel further contends that, as a matter of fact, there is no prohibition under the Act in the matter of issuance of number of stage carriage permits, be it on a state route or an interstate route. However, for regulation of inter-state routes, both State enter into an agreement as the one in hand (Annexure P/3) which does not contemplate fixed number of permits to be issued. On the contrary, it contemplates that for the routes falling within the State of Madhya Pradesh though covering certain area of State of Uttar Pradesh, there shall be no requirement of counter-signatures. Learned counsel further submits that the temporary permit has been issued to respondent no.3 because of temporary need, issuance of which is well within the scope of section 87(c) of the Act. He further contends that the Revisional Authority has addressed on this issue elaborately along with other issues raised before it, with due advertence to the factual matrix in hand and relevant legal provisions. As such, the Authority has acted well within its jurisdiction and has not committed any illegality or irregularity while exercising its revisional jurisdiction. Under such circumstances, no interference is warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution. 9. Heard. 10. As such, the Authority has acted well within its jurisdiction and has not committed any illegality or irregularity while exercising its revisional jurisdiction. Under such circumstances, no interference is warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution. 9. Heard. 10. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it is apposite to observe that extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of this Court embodied in Article 227 of the Constitution, in fact and in effect, is supervisory in nature, in exercise of its power of superintendence over the Courts or Tribunals below and is regulated by self imposed limitations/restrictions. This Court does not sit in appeal to decide the cases on merits against the orders passed by the Courts or Tribunals below and generally confines its scope of enquiry to jurisdictional error, patent illegality or perversity while examining the orders impugned. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the provisions as contained in sections 87 and 88 of the Act, this Court is of the view that the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority did not lack jurisdiction or competence in the matter of issuance of temporary permit on an inter-state route for the destinations covered under second proviso to section 88 of the Act. Nevertheless, the power conferred under section 87 of the Act upon the aforesaid Authorities to issue temporary permits itself provides sufficient guidelines and areas of consideration for the purpose of issuance of temporary permits. As such,the competent Authority is statutorily obliged to ascertain fulfilment of requirement of section 87 before issuance of temporary permits. It needs no mention that the Authority is required to consider relevant material objectively to record its satisfaction for existence of the conditions mentioned in section 87 of the Act before issuance of temporary permits, failing which the exercise of power by the Authority shall become vulnerable and may fall within the scope of judicial review by the Revisional Authority or any other competent forum. That apart, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts, in catena of decisions, have struck a note of caution to the competent Authority in the matter of issuance of successive temporary permits instead of resorting to issue permanent permit. In the instant case, the competent Authority has issued temporary permit to respondent no.3 from Satna to Nardaha falling within the State of Madhya Pradesh with covering of only 6 Kms. In the instant case, the competent Authority has issued temporary permit to respondent no.3 from Satna to Nardaha falling within the State of Madhya Pradesh with covering of only 6 Kms. in the State of Uttar Pradesh on inter-state route. Hence, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Authority in the light of second proviso to section 88 of the Act. Hence, the revisional Authority was justified having rejected the contention raised relating to lack of authority with the competent Authority. Hence, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Revisional Authority. However, as the temporary permit issued to respondent no.3 is likely to expire on 31/5/17, in the event application is filed by any person including respondent no.3 for issuance of temporary permit, the Authority shall be well advised to bear in mind the statutory obligation cast upon it under section 87 of the Act and after due advertence to the relevant material on record, shall decide the application for the purpose of issuance of temporary permit. 12. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands dismissed.