Raj Kishore Prasad, J.

1. In this case, the High Court, on the application of the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has issued a rule on the opposite party to show cause why an appropriate writ should not be issued quashing the orders of the South Bihar Regional Transport Authority passed on the 11th October, 1955, and, on the 12th November, 1955, refusing to renew the permit of the petitioner to ply stage carriage services over the routes specified, in his affidavit. The Government Advocate has shown cause on behalf of the opposite party, but has not filed any counter-affidavit in the case.

2. The facts leading up to the present application may shortly be stated thus:

3. The petitioner had been carrying on the business of stage carriage services in the district of Gaya for a very long time. He had been granted stage carriage permits in the past, and, these permits had been renewed from time to time by the Regional Transport Authority. The petitioners last permit was to expire on the 31st December, 1953, and, therefore, he made an application, under Section 58(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act IV of 1939), hereinafter mentioned as "the Act", f