The concealment of partnership with a third party, if it existed, did not amount to misrepresentation under Section 60(1)(d) of the Motor Vehicles Act, as the replacement of the vehicle was not obtained by making such misrepresentation, and the RTA had no power to refuse replacement.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Messrs. Rama Shanker misra and Brothers of Kanpur for the issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash resolution No. 11 (e) dated 1-11-1956 of the Regional Transport Authority, Kanpur, respondent no. 1, cancelling permanent permit No. 374 for Mahoha Rajnagar route which had been granted to the petitioner and had once been renewed. A request was also made for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to command the respondents, namely, the above Regional Transport authority and the State Transport Authority, Lucknow, respondent No, 2, not to interfere with the petitioners right of running his stage carriage permit on Mahoba-Rajnagar route under the above permit in accordance with the law.

( 2 ) DURING the pendency of the present writ petition, Ahmad Husain, respondent No, 3, applied for being added as a co-respondent, The application was opposed by the petitioner, but was allowed. Ahmad Husain is thus respondent No. 3, and he is the person on whose complaint the permanent permit of the petitioner was cancelled.

( 3 ) THE record has become somewhat bulky on account of the parties raising unnecessary issues, for example Ahmad Husain has given a long history of his claims for being granted a permanent permit for the above route on the ground that it was on account of his efforts that the Provincial transport Authority, Vindhya Pradesh, Rewa, consented to countersign the permit to be issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Kanpur, for running stage carriage on the above route which lay partly within the limits of the State of Vindhya Pradesh. These are all matters of past history, and even if the assertions are correct, they would not justify cancellation of the permit of the petitioner and the grant of a permanent permit to Ahmad husain, respondent No, 3. The parties do not admit certain other facts, for example, the nature of the agreement arrived at between the petitioner and Ahmad Husain, respondent No. 3, and the correctness or otherwise of the complaints made by Ahmad Husain, Most of these points are not material for the decision of the present proceeding, and I shall confine myself to only the material facts, most of which are not in dispute.

( 4 ) RAMA Shankar Misra, Bijai Shankar Misra and Girja Shankar Misra, all of whom are brothers, jointly carried on the family business of running a stage carriage under the name and style of m/s. Rama Shankar Misra and Brothers. The said Firm, which shall hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner, held one permanent stage carriage permit No. 374 for running their stage carriage on Mahoba-Rajnagar route. The permit was issued on 28-11-1951 in respect of vehicle No. U. P. R. 4801 valid up to 27-11-1954. It was renewed on 5-10-1955 for a period of three years, that is, up to 4-10-1958. The vehicle No. U. P. R. 4801 covered by the permit was on 18-7-1952 replaced by vehicle No. U. P. R. 6962. The petitioners case is that this vehicle met with an accident in the year 1954 and was badly damaged whereafter it became necessary for the petitioner to replace the said vehicle. This assertion is either not admitted or denied by the respondents. The fact, however, remains that vehicle No. U. P. R. 6962 was not plied for a few months. The renewal of permit No. 374 was allowed by the Regional Transport Authority, Kanpur, in its meeting held on February 14/15, 1955, whereupon the petitioner requested for extension of time to produce a fit vehicle. The application so moved is dated 12-4-1955. The petitioner was allowed one months time to obtain renewal of permit, and, later on, the period was extended up to October 10, 1955.

( 5 ) IT was on 5-10-1955 that the petitioner produced a vehicle No. U. S. C. 266 which was declared fit, and the permit was renewed after allowing necessary replacement of the old vehicle. The new permit thus covered vehicle No. U. S. C. 266. From the counter-affidavit f