timings were allotted to other senior operators on the sector. It was contended that, strong objections filed against this stage carriage are still prevailing and granting of such a permit may lead to unhealthy practices and time clash. It was also contended that the temporary application sought by the petitioner is not maintainable as the same is not in existence. It was also stated that, in the application vehicle number was not disclosed and hence the fee could not be accepted. Hence the application cannot be processed. Relying on the decision reported in Sijo Paul and Another v.Secretary, Regional Transport Authority ( 2019 (4) KHC 385) , it was contended that the temporary permit can be granted only for meeting a particular temporary need. It seems that the original permit holder surrendered the route. Relying on the decisions reported in Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Balragarh, Bhopal(M.P) v. B.P.Upadhyaya, Regional Transport Authority, Raipur and others ( AIR 1966 SC 156) , which was followed by this court in M.V.Joseph v. Senapathi & Others 970 KLT 1102 ,it was contended that temporary need can arise due to the non operation of the regular service. In the statement, the Secretary RTA has taken up definite stand that the timing was allotted to the senior operator. The date on which such an allotment was made and the vehicle in whose favour that was allotted are not discernible from the statement. It is also pertinent to note that, the contention that there is no temporary need, does not appear to be sustainable for the reason that Ext.P1 order and P3 permit indicate that due to the surrender of the permit by the original permit holder, a temporary need arose and temporary permit was in fact issued to the petitioner. Evidently, allotment of
