( 1 ) THE petitioner held a stage carriage permit No. 15 on Garh Delhi route. The vehicle covered by this permit was No. USL 2855. It appeared that the vehicle had become old, consequently on 10-9-1955 the petitioner applied to the Regional Transport Authority concerned for replacement of the vehicle. His case is that in response to the requisition sent by the Regional Transport authority he was driving his vehicle No. USL 2855 to the office of the Regional Transport authority for its inspection on 3-11-1955. The vehicle was, further according to him, empty at the moment but it was checked by the enforcement Squad and as there was no fitness certificate then valid, his case was reported to the regional Transport Authority which purporting to act under Section 60 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1939, suspended the permit for a period of three months. The fitness certificate originally held in respect of this vehicle had expired on 19-10-1955. On 3-11-1955 when the vehicle was checked by the Enforcement Squad there admittedly was no fitness certificate in force. Petitioners contention is that he was not plying the vehicle under the per-mit, on the contrary, he was taking it to the Regional Transport Authority in pursuance of its requisition, therefore, a fitness certificate was not required at the time.

( 2 ) THE fact that the vehicle was not being used at the time for carrying passengers is not admitted by the respondents. In fact, according to the respondents, the petitioner despite the expiry of the fitness certificate On 19-10-1955 continued to ply vehicle No. USL 2855 on subsequent dates also. The counter-affidavit filed on their behalf has given details in this connection, as also the fact that two original challans, dated 1-11-1955 and dated 2-11-1955 showing the loading of passengers in the vehicle by the petitioners on those dates, were also recovered from the personal custody of the driver at the time of checking. Their allegation further is that even on 3-11-1955 he carried passengers in the vehicle but on getting scent about the presence of the Enforcement Squad ahead they were asked to get down at sahadra, a little distance before Delh. Next it appears that the Regional Transport Authority on receipt of the complaint by the Enforcement Squad called upon the petitioner to show cause why the permit No. 15, which covered this vehicle, be not suspended and, ultimately, after hearing the petitioner, who of course denied the fact that he had carried any passengers, rejected his allegations and suspended the permit for a period of three months by its resolution No. 55 (a) dated 27-1-1956. Against this decision of the Regional Transport Authority the petitioner appealed to the State transport Authority which, by its order dated 5-10-1956, upheld the order of the Regional transport Authority. The petitioner then filed the present petition for quashing the said two orders as also the requisition dated 23-10-1956 by which the Regional Transport Authority later asked him to surrender the permit in consequence of the suspension order. A writ of mandamus is also asked asking the Transport Authorities not to interfere with his right to ply the vehicle no. USL 5566 which in the mean time has been substituted under the permit which was suspended.

( 3 ) A number of grounds have been urged in the petition but the only one that has been actually canvassed is that the Regional Transport Authority had no jurisdiction under Section 60, under which section it acted, to order suspension of the permit. Section 60 provides that the Transport authority, which granted a permit, may cancel the permit or may suspend it for such period as it thinks fit on breach of any condition specified in Sub-section (3) of Section 59, or on any condition contained in the permit or if the holder of the permit uses or allows a vehicle to ba used in any manner not authorised by the permit. There are certain other grounds also on which it may cancel or