JUDGMENT
1. In this case the petitioner has obtained a rule from the High Court calling upon the respondents to show cause why the order of the Chairman of the East Bihar Regional Transport Authority, rejecting the application of the petitioner for cancellation of the permit of respondent No 3, Messrs. Ganga Motor Service, under Section 60(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, dated the 15th May, 1961, should not be set aside by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution. Cause has been shown on behalf of respondent No. 3 whom notice of the rule was ordered to be given. There is no appearance on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 who also were given notice of the rule. The order of the Chairman of the East Bihar Regional Transport Authority, dated the 15th May, 1961, is annexure C to the application and reads follows:
“Heard both the parties.
The Ganga Motor Service have not violated any of the terms of the permit to justify the cancellation of their permit. There is, therefore, no merit in this petition filed by the Special Officer, State Road Transport Corporation, and so it is rejected.
Sd/.- Dr. G. Jacob.
15-5-61″.
2-3. After quoting the application of the petitioner for cancellation of the permit granted to Respondent Nc. 3, their Lordships continue as under:–) The argument addressed on behalf of the petitioner is that the permit was given to respondent No. 3 by the Regional Transport Authority on the implied condition that respondent No. 3 had an out-agency contract for the Eastern Railway for carrying passengers between Rampur Hat .Railway Station and Dumka. It. was pointed out by learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner that on the 30th July, 1957, when respondent No. 3 got the stage carriage permit, and also on the 5th November, 1960, when the permit of respondent No. 3 was renewed for a period of three years, there was a subsisting contract of out-agency between respondent No. 3 and the authorities of the Eastern Railway. It was also pointed out that the permit granted to respondent No. 3, which is annexure A to the application, gives the timings oi the services in column 8, which correspond the arrival and departure of trains at the Rampur Hat Railway Station. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in the circumstances of the case there was an implied condition in the permit granted to respondent No. 3 that so long as the permit was in operation respondent No. 3 will have a subsisting contract of out-agency for Rampur Hat Railway Station.
In other words, it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the possession of a contract of out-agency by respondent No. 3 was the substratum or the foundation for the grant of the permit. It was argued, therefore, that after the contract of out-agency was taken away from respondent No. 3 and given to the petitioner, the condition for the grant of the permit had vanished and there was a good case made for cancellation of the permit given by the Regional Transport Authority to respondent No. 3. In support of this argument learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the court of Appeal in The Moorcock, (1889) 14 PD 64 at p. 69 and also upon the statement of law in Halsbury’s Laws of England, 3rd edition, Volume 8, page 121, Paragraph 212. The opposite view point was put forward by learned Counsel on behalf of respondent No. 3. It was submitted that there was no implied condition in the permit that respondent No. .3 should possess a contract of out-agency for the Rampur Hat Railway Station, and merely because, respondent No. 3 was not given the cut-agency contract with effect from the 16th January, 1961, it cannot be said that there was violation of any condition of the permit by respondent No. 3.
4. We do not propose in this case to express any opinion on this aspect of the case, because we consider that the order of the Chairman of the Regional Transport Authority must be set aside on the ground that he had no power to consider or to pass any order on the application of the petitioner for cancellation of the permit of respondent No. 3 under Section 60(1)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The power of cancellation and suspension of permits is granted by Section 60(1) of the Act to the transport authority who granted the permit. In the present case it is manifest that it was the East Bihar Regional Transport Authority which alone had the Authority to cancel or suspend the permit, and the Chairman of the East Bihar Regional Transport Authority had no authority to dispose of the application, of the petitioner dated the 26th April, 1961. It was. however, contended on behalf of respondent No. 3 that the power of suspension and cancellation 06 permit has been delegated to the Chairman under Rule 43-A. 1(i) (j) which states as follows:
“43-A-l(i). A Regional Transport Authority may, for the prompt and convenient despatch of business, by general or special resolution delegate all or any of the following powers to its Chairman, namely;
“*****
(J) Power under Section 60 of the Act to suspend a permit.”
There is no statement in the counter-affidavit filed by respondent No. 3 that there was actual delegation in this case of the power under Sec, 60 of the Act to suspend the permit to the Chairman of the East Bihar Regional Transport Authority. We must take it, therefore, that there is no express delegation of the power to suspend the permit under Section 60 of the Act by the East Bihar Regional Transport Authority under Rule 43-A. It follows, therefore, that the order of the Chairman dated the 15th May, 1961, rejecting the application of the petitioner for cancelling the permit of respondent No. 3, dated the 26th April, 1961, is illegal and ultra vires.
5. Acting, therefore in exercise of our authority under Article 227 of the Constitution, we set aside the order of the Chairman of the East Bihar Regional Transport Authority, dated the 15th May, 1961, which is annexure C to the application, and direct that the application of the petitioner, dated the 26th April, 1961, for cancellation of the permit of respondent No. 3 under Section 60(1) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, shall be dealt with by the East Bihar Regional Transport Authority and disposed of in accordance with law.
6. We accordingly allow this application,
but there will be no order as to costs.