D.P. Gupta, J.
1. The case was fixed for orders on stay application today, but on the request of the learned Counsel for the patties the main writ petition was taken up for hearing. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. A temporary permit was granted to the respondent No. 3 on Ajmet Pisengan via Pusokar, Nand, Picholia route by the Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur by its order dated 24-12-1974 A revision fifed by the petitioner, who is the existing operator of the aforesaid route, before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur was dismissed. In the present writ petition challenging the grant of the aforesaid, temporary permit to the respondent No. 3, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that toe Transport Authorities did not coma to the conclusion that there was a particular temporary need within the meaning of Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act thereinafter referred to as 'The Act') & as such the grant of a temporary permit to the respondent No. 3 on the other hand argued that the temporary need may co-exist with a permanent need and placed reliance on the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in. The Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Bairagarh Bhopal M.P. v. S.P. Upodhyaya, Regional Transport Authurity, Raipur, and Ors. : 3SCR786 . Learned Counsel for the petitioner however submitted that may be so, but it is not necessary in each and every case where a vacancy existed that a temporary need also arose simultaneously. He placed relience on Raipur Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. Raipur v. Regional Transport Authority, Jabalpur and Ors. : AIR1967MP141 in support of his submission. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that in, the application for the grant of a temporary permit the respondent No. 3 stated in column No. 4 that tne temporary permit was desired for the purpose of 'to carry regular service', which could not be termed as a temporary need, within the meaning of Section 62 of the Act Reliance has been placed in support of this contention, upon the decision of this Court in Mohammed Yunus v. Regional Transport Authority and Ors. S.S. Civil Writ Petition No. 1869 of 1970 decided on October 26, 1970 and an unreported judgment of the Supreme Court in Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. K. Venkataramirddy and Ors. 1970 UJ (SC) 408.
3. I have considered the rival contention. From a perusal of the Regional Transport Authority it clearly emerges that the only reason assigned by it for the grant of a temporary permit to the Respondent No. 3 was that there was vacancy of one permit on the route. From the mere fact a vacancy existed on the route, the Regional Transport Authority arrived at the conclusion that along with the permanent need there was also a temporary need, which was required to be filled in by the grant of a temporary permit. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal also expressed, the same opinion and observed that a temporary need could be presumed to exist in the circumstances of the case. It was necessary before a temporary permit could have been granted that the Regional Transport Authority could have come to a firm conclusion that a temporary need also simultaneously exists on a route, although there is no doubt that a temporary need, may also coexist along with a permanent need provided the circumstances lead to that conclusion as held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in The Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Bairagarh, Bhopal case : 3SCR786 . It is difficult to conceive that a temporary permit may be granted only for the purpose of enabling a vehicle to ply in rotation with (sic) vehicle already plying on on a non temporary permit on the route. In the application for the grant of a temporary permit the respondent No. 3 mentioned that the temporary permit was desired by her 'to carry regular service', which does not come within any of the clauses of Section 62(1) on, the Act and does not constitute a temporary need at all.
4. In Mohammed Yunus's case, this Court definitely took the view that merely because there were, vacancies existing on the route, a temporary permit could not be granted and that to run a regular bus service is not a temporary need. I respectfully agree with the view taken in the aforesaid case. In Raipur Transport Company's case it was held that whenever there is a permanent need, a temporary need cannot always be presumed or implied. There must be some other circumstance in existence, in addition to the mere existence of a vacancy from which the Transport Authority may come to the conclusion that there was a particular temporary need, besides there being a permanent need. In Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporations case 1970 UJ (SC) 408 their Lordships of the Supreme Court were pleased to observe:
There can be no manner of doubt that in the absence of any purpose or reason for which temporary permits were asked for the Regional Transport Authority should have dismissed the application in limini because a temporary permit can be granted only if the permit is required for the purpose or reason mentioned from (a) to (d) in Section 62 of the Act.
The purpose mentioned in the application of the respondent No. 3 of running bus service it no purpose within the meaning of any of the clauses of Section 62(1) of the Act and, therefore, no temporary permit could have been granted by the Regional Transport Authority on such an application. Moreover, the order of the Regional Transport Authority does not show that any other circumstances was taken by it into consideration, besides the mere existence of a vacancy on the route, to come to the conclusion that there was a temporary need. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal also did not take into consideration any other circumstance, besides the existence of a vacancy, which could lead it to the conclusion that a particular temporary need existed, on the route at, the relevant time. The conclusion arrived at by the Appellate Tribunal that till the permanent vacancy was filled up, it was natural that a temporary need existed, is merely based on presumption and (sic). In these circumstances, the grant of a temporary permit to the respondent No. 3 is apparently erroneous and cannot be upheld as no particular temporary need has been shown to exist on the aforesaid route.
5. The result is, that the order of the Regional Transport Authority Jaipur dated December 24, 1974 and the order of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Jaipur dated January 24, 1974 are (sic) and the temporary permit granted to the respondent No. 3 no the aforesaid is set set aside. The writ petition is allowed as indicated above. The parties are left to bear their own costs.