A permit that was illegally granted cannot be renewed.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal from a judgment of our brother M. L. Chaturvedi rejecting the appellants petition for a writ of certiorari to quash an order dated. March, 5/6, 1954 passed by the State transport Authority U. P. respondent No. 1 on appeal and a writ of mandamus directing the regional Transport Authority, Kanpur, to decide the appellants application dated March 1 and 2, 1954, for renewal of two permanent permits granted to him and directing it to renew the permits in preference to issuing fresh permits to others.

( 2 ) THE permits in dispute are for the route Tirwa-Debiapur. The Regional Transport Authority decided to open this route for the first time in 1951 and invited applications for permits. The appellant applied for two permits and one Shyam Sunder also applied for one permit. The applications of the appellant were published in the gazette as required under Section 57 (3) of the motor Vehicles Act (Act No. IV of 1939) on 28-4-1951 while the application of Shyam Sunder was published in the gazette on 17 -. 3-1951. These applications were considered by the Regional transport Authority at a meeting held by it on May 16/17, 1951 and it granted two permits to the appellant and one permit to Shyam Sunder, the permits being valid for three years. Somebody filed appeals against the orders of the Regional Transport Authority granting permits to the appellant and Shyam Sunder and they were disposed of by the State Transport Authority u. P. While the appeals were pending the appellant on March 1/2,1954 applied for renewal of the two permits because their term was about to expire and Shyam Sunder also applied for renewal of his permit. Both the appeals were disposed of by the State Transport Authority on 5/6-3-1954. They were dismissed but the permits were held to have been illegally granted on the ground that the applications were considered by the Regional Transport Authority within 30 days of the dates on which they were published. Under Section 57 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, an application must be considered by the Regional Transport Authority on a date at least 30 days from the date on which it is published. The applications of the appellant were undoubtedly considered and allowed by the Regional Transport Authority within 30 days of the date on which they were published in the gazette but not that of Shyam Sunder. The State Transport Authority probably was mis-informed that Shyam Sunders application also was considered within 30 days from the date of its publication. Since the term of the permits was about to expire the State Transport Authority decided not to disturb operation of the permits notwithstanding their being illegally granted and directed the Regional Transport Authority not to renew them automatically but to invite fresh applications after informing the applicants and consider them in strict conformity with the provisions of Section 57 (3 ). This is the order that the appellant challanges in this writ petition. On the basis of this order the regional Transport Authority on 1-7-1954 dismissed the appellants applications for renewal of his permits dated March 1/2-1954. it also dismissed the application of Shyam Sunder for renewal of his permit. The appellant and Shyam Sunder applied for fresh permits also for the same route but on May 19/21, 1955 they were dismissed by the Regional Transport Authority on the ground that it had abolished the route Tirwa-Debipur, and was not going to issue any permits for it. An appeal from the dismissal of that application is pending before the State Transport Authority and we are not concerned with it.

( 3 ) THE appellant through this writ petition wants the direction issued by the State Transport authority in its order of March 5/6, 1954 regarding non-renewal of the permits of the appellant and inviting fresh applications, to be quashed. He further wants the Regional Transport authority to be ordered to redecide the appellants applications for renewal of the per