The regional transport authority must adhere to statutes when granting permits, but may consider public interest and demand in the process.

1. This application under Art.226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order passed by the State Transport Authority in its meeting held on 30th and 31st May, 1969 allowing a revision application against the order of the Regional Transport Authority Dhubri, passed in its meeting held on 19th and 24th September, 1968. granting twelve periodic contract carriage permits for a period of three years and two such temporary permits. The petitioner was granted one of the periodic permits.

2. The State Transport Authority entertained the revision application under S.64 - A of the Motor Vehicles Act , hereinafter called 'the Act', on the application of the Secretary, Dhubri Hat - Bazar Bus Association (Respondent No.4), who withdrew from the contest here.

3. The facts of the case are as follows : The Regional Transport Authority invited applications for five casual contract carriage (Hat - Bazar Bus) permits for certain specified centres by a notification dated 22nd February, 1968 published in the Assam Gazette of March 13, 1968. It was mentioned in the advertisement that the Regional Transport Authority reserved the right to increase or decrease the number of permits according to demand. There were more than 250 applicants for these permits. The Authority considered the matter and decided as follows :
"At this stage the members of their own information and local knowledge and in view of the representations made vide Resolution No. XXIV of the last R.T.A. meeting held on 27th and 28th October, 67 and 19th February 1968 felt the necessity of increasing the number of contract carriage permits for immediate disposal from among the present applicants numbering more than 250. The Board after due deliberation and careful consideration decided to increase 8 (eight) contract carriage permits as shown below against each centre for immediate consideration from among the present applicants".
It appears that in the earlier resolutions of the Authority referred to in the above order they had already decided to increase five contract carriage permits which they had to advertise. Thus, with the above order, the number of permits came to be thirteen, which have been allotted by the Regional Transport Authority to thirteen applicants including this petitioner. The State Transport Authority in revision, while setting aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority, observed as follows :
"The R.T.A. advertised for 5 periodic contract carriage permits only. The granting of that number of permits or a few more would have been reasonably within the R.T.A's competence. But it cannot be said that they had not acted adversely to the interests of the existing operators by raising the number to 12 which is more than double the number advertised. To do this without giving an opportunity to the existing operators had been improper and the granting of two temporary permits against permanent needs had further added to this impropriety."
We are not concerned with the second part of the order regarding the decison to increase the number to 70 at present. Finally, it held :
"Therefore action of the R.T.A. in increasing the number without following the procedure provided in S.50 of the M.V. Act is improper, illegal and without jurisdiction."

4. S.49, S.50 and S.51 of the Act deal with application for contract carriage permit, procedure of the Regional Transport Authority in considering such application, and grant of contract carriage permits respectively. Under S.57(1), an application for a contract carriage permit or a private carrier's permit may be made at any time. Under sub-section (6) of S.57, when any representation has been made by the persons or authorities referred to in S.50 to the effect that the number of contract carriages for