The liability to carry mails under a permit issued by the RTA is subject to the fixation of rates and conditions by the RTA.

Mangalmurti, J—This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for writs of certiorari and mandamus and for orders and directions to the non-applicant not to give effect to its order dated the 27th February 1952 and to permit the applicant to operate its service on the Raipur-Jagdalpur route.

2. The applicant was a holder of a regular permit for one timing on this route. The permit of the other operator who was carrying postal mails was cancelled by the non-applicant. On an enquiry dated the nth April 1951 by the non-applicant the applicant by the letter dated the 12th April 1951 offered to do the work on the terms and conditions of the previous operator provided it was given the timings for conveyance of the postal mail as were given to the latter. The applicant added 'As regards subsidy we shall accept what is fixed by the Regional Transport Authority, in accordance with the rules". The applicant was granted temporary permits dated the 19th May 1951, 1st June 1951 and 8th June 1951. By a resolution of the non-applicant dated the 30th May 1951, a regular permit was granted to the applicant and it was "directed to carry postal mail temporarily until such time as the question of assignment of postal contract is decided finally by postal authority". Accordingly, a regular permit was issued on the 15th June 1951, effective till the 15th October 1951. Condition no. 6 attached to this and the previous pemits issued to the applicant is-- The holder of the permit shall, if so required by the Regional Transport Authority to carry mails at such rates and subject to such conditions as the Regional Transport Authority may fix and impose in consultation with the postal authorities.

3. It is common ground that the rates and conditions have not yet been fixed by the non-applicant. A provisional arrangement for payment of the subsidy till the 30th June 1951 was reached between the postal authorities and the applicant on the 4th June 1951.

4. On the 30th August 1951 the non-applicant gave certain directions to the postal authorities about the principles on which subsidy should be fixed by them. A considerable correspondence between the applicant and the postal authorities followed, but they did not leach any agreement. By a letter dated the 17th December 1951 the applicant recapitulated his case and requested the Superintendent of Post Offices to settle the matter without delay. The applicant demanded Rs. 1,600 per month on certain conditions. By a letter dated the 4th January 1952, the Superintendent offered to pay only Rs. 787 per month as the maximum subsidy. By a letter dated the 9th January 1952 the applicant informed him that as they could not reach an agreement the applicant would not be carrying the postal mails with effect from the 15th January 1952-

5. By a memorandum dated the 12th January 1952, the Secretary of the non-applicant pointed out to the applicant that he was bound to carry mails as and when required by the Regional Transport Authority under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Rules and asked the applicant to carry mails as usual from the 15th till the question of fixing up the subsidy was decided. In reply the applicant pointed out that it was not liable to carry postal mails unless the rates and conditions were fixed by the non-applicant. The applicant offered to carry mails temporarily provided payments were made daily in advance at 6 pies per maund per mile like ordinary goods. The applicant pointed out that the Regional Transport Authority could not compel it to enter into a contract with the postal authorities. It was added that the question of subsidy should be decided by the Regional Transport Authority by a procedure of circulation of resolutions. In reply the Secretary of the non-applicant reiterated his order of the 12th January and warned that disobedience would be severely viewed and the permit would be suspended. By its reply of the same date, the applicant complained of the inaction of th