PATHAK, J. :- By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners pray for a writ in the nature of certiorari against a resolution of the Regional Transport Authority, Kanpur granting permits to the respondents Nos.2 to 11.

2. The petitioners ply their stage carriages on the Orai-Rampura via Baghra-Jalaun route on permits granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Kanpur under the Motor Vehicles Act. The strength sanctioned in respect of that route was 12 stage carriages at the relevant time. Dr. Anand, the second respondent, had been granted a permit in respect of this route, but subsequently, he surrendered the permit. Upon this, a vacancy arose and by a notification dated July 1, 1967, published in the U.P. Gazette of that date the Regional Transport Authority invited applications for the grant of the permit. The notification specifically mentioned that there was only one vacancy on the route. Fiftyone applications were filed, and by a notification dated February 16, 1968, published in the U.P. Gazette dated March 2, 1968, the Regional Transport Authority announced the names of the applicants and invited objections to their applications. The meeting of the Regional Transport Authority at which the applications and objections were proposed to be considered was scheduled for August 19, 20 and 21, 1969.

3. The applications and objections were however, taken up by the Regional Transport Authority in its meeting of September 13, 14 and 15, 1969. By its resolution passed on September 15, 1969 it sanctioned as many as ten permits to respondents Nos.2 to 11. The petitioners challenge the validity of that resolution.

4. Shri L.P. Naithani, for the petitioners, states that what the Regional Transport Authority did during the meeting was to take up the applications for grant of permits, then raise the sanctioned strength of stage carriages in respect of the route and thereafter grant permits to the respondents. He contends that after the applications had been taken up for consideration it was not open to the Regional Transport Authority to increase the sanctioned strength and then grant permits on the basis of the increased strength. It appears to us, upon examination of a copy of the relevant proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority, that in fact while the Regional Transport Authority, had originally proposed to take up the applications for the grant of the permit, it subsequently decided to defer consideration until it decided upon whether to increase the sanctioned strength. The latter question was then considered by it and it decided to raise the strength fixed in respect of the route. Thereafter, it took up the applications again and proceeded to consider them on their merits. Shri Naithani says that even in that case the grant of the permits is without jurisdiction, because after raising the sanctioned strength the Regional Transport Authority should have followed the procedure set out in Section 57(3) of the Act, that is, published the fact of the increased strength, allowed time for filing representations again, fixed a date for considering the applications and representations, and then disposed them of on the date so fixed.

5. Shri R.C. Srivastava, for the respondents Nos.2 to 11, points out that the Regional Transport Authority increased the sanctioned strength and granted the permits in two separate and distinct proceedings, that although both took place on the same day they could not be treated as one and the same proceeding.

6. A person intending to use a motor vehicle as a stage carriage must, by reason of Section 42 of the Motor Vehicles Act, apply to the Regional Transport Authority for a permit enabling him to do so. Section 47(1) provides that the Regional Transport Authority when considering an application for a stage carriage permit must have regard to the following matters:

(a) the interests of the public generally;

(b) the advantages to the public of the service to be provided, inclu