The Tribunal acted correctly in dismissing the permit based on unsupported allegations and ensuring that principles of natural justice were upheld.

1. facts to the Regional Transport Authority. In obtaining the permit and has thus committed an error of law apparent on the face of the record, I, however, find myself unable to agree with any one off these contentions.
This writ petition is directed against an order dated 31-7-63 of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal Lucknow, setting aside a resolution of the Regional Transport Authority Bareilly granting permit for a stage carriage to the petitioner.

2. The undisputed facts which are relevant to the questions in controversy may be stated briefly:

3. The Regional Transport Authority Barelliy, after inviting applications, granted permits for plying stage carriages on Barelliy Uswan route to live persons in its meeting held on 7/8th of December, 1959. One of these permits was granted jointly to the petitioner and one Smt. Shanti Devi, wife of Sri Ram Agarwal. In the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority the petitioner Lad appeared and stated that his mother Smt. Kalawati Devi had Rs. 15,000/- in deposit and had produced her Passbook.

4. Appeals were filed against the resolution dated 7/8th of December 1959 of the Regional Transport Authority which were allowed by the Appellate Tribunal on 22-6-1960 inter alia on the ground that the granting of joint permit was illegal and further because the petitioner had wrongly stated that the passbook was owned by his mother whereas it was actually owned by his aunt. The Tribunal remanded back the case to the Regional Transport Authority for its reconsideration in the light of its observations.

5. The Regional Transport Authority considered the matter afresh in its meeting of 26/27th of December, 1960 and granted fresh permits to the petitioner and six others. It, however, refused to grant permit to the respondent No. 3 who was also an applicant for the same. The respondent No. 3 and two others went up in appeal to the Tribunal against the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority and the Tribunal accepted the respondent's appeal, set aside the resolution of the Transport Authority rejecting his application for permit and granted him a permit for stage carriage. It also cancelled the permit which had been granted to the petitioner under the aforesaid resolution. The petitioner thereafter filed this petition on 14th of August 1963 praying therein inter alia for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order of the Tribunal.

6. S.N. Kakkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, has challenged the validity of the impugned order mainly en three grounds. Firstly, that as the Tribunal has relied upon an affidavit of respondent No. 3 which was filed before it without any notice to the petitioner and behind his back, in holding that the respondent No. 3 had no connection with Pakistan, without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to controvert the same the order has resulted in violation of the rules of natural justice. Secondly, that the order of the Tribunal is vitiated by extraneous consideration inasmuch as it has described the respondent No. 3 as a displaced operator though the respondent himself had admitted that he was not a displaced operator. Thirdly, because the Tribunal had erred in assuming without any proof that the petitioner had misrepresented.

7. In his counter - affidavit the respondent No. 3 has denied the petitioner's allegation that he asked for an opportunity from the State Tribunal to controvert the facts stated to his affidavit which was filed on the 28th of December, 1960 before the Regional Transport Authority and not before the Tribunal. Thus it has become a disputed question of fact as to whether the petitioner had ever asked for a