Altamas Kabir, J. - (1.) Since Mr. N. Khan has appeared for the State, no useful purpose will be served by keeping the matter pending.
(2.) The petitioner's grievances in this writ petition are two-fold. Firstly, it is the petitioner's grievance that, although, he has been granted temporary permits on several occasions, the time-table of the route has not been approved and as a result whereof he has not been able to ply his vehicle. Secondly, according to the petitioner, since successive temporary permits have been granted to him, having regard to the various decisions of the Supreme Court in such cases, his permit should be converted into a permanent permit.
(3.) Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the State, the respondents concerned are directed to approve the petitioner's time table within a week from date and during the interim period, the petitioner should be allowed to ply his vehicle on the basis of his earlier time-table. As far as the petitioner's second grievance is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has on repeated occasions deprecated the practice of grant of successive temporary permits. In the case of A. Viswanathan v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Pondicherry reported in AIR 1987 SC 731, the Hon'ble ; Supreme Court has observed that issuance of successive temporary permits reveals that there is a permanent need on the route in question and the authorities concerned should consider such aspect of the matter so that an operator does not have to apply every four months for grant of such permits.;