Judgment :- 1. These four original petitions by different petitioners, were heard together. Each of the Petitioners owned buses for which permits had been granted by the Regional Transport Authority. The permits of four motor buses, one belonging to each of the petitioners were suspended by the Regional Transport Authority on the ground of over-loading. The respective orders suspending the permits are sought to be quashed by a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order. The Respondent in all the petitions is the Regional Transport Authority. 2. The short question which arises in all these petitions is whether the Regional Transport Authority can suspend the permit of Motor Bus on the ground that it was found carrying more passengers than the number of passengers' seats mentioned in the permits. In other words, the question is whether the mention of passengers' seats in a permit is one of the "conditions of the permit" for the breach of which the permit can be suspended. This has to be decided in the light of the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act IV of 1939 and the rules framed thereunder. Sub-section (1) of S.48 of the Act which relates to grant of stage carriage permits provides: "Subject to the provisions of S.47, a Regional Transport Authority may, on an application made to it under S.46, grant a stage carriage permit in accordance with the application or with such modifications as it deems fit or refuse to grant such a permit." Provided that no such permit shall be granted in respect of any route or area not specified in the application. Sub-section (3) enables the Regional Transport Authority to attach to the permit any one or more of the conditions specified thereunder. The sixth condition is "the maximum number of passengers and the maximum weight of luggage that may be carried on in any specified vehicle or in vehicle of a specified type, either generally or on specified occasions or at specified time and seasons." S.48 in the Act of 1939 was substituted by a new section by Act 100 of 1956 but condition No. 6 extracted above is exactly similar in scope to S.48(d)(iv) as it stood on the dates the permits were granted to the petitioners. The conditions mentioned in S.48(3) are in addition to the general conditions attaching to all permits which are stated in S.59(3) of the Act, which reads as follows: a) that the vehicle or vehicles to which the permit relates are at all times so maintained as to comply with the requirements of Chapter V and the rules made thereunder; (b) that the vehicle or vehicles to which the permit relates are not driven at a spend exceeding the speed lawful under this Act; (c) that any prohibition or restriction imposed and any maximum or minimum fares or freights fixed by the notification made under S.43 are observed in connection with any vehicle or vehicles to which the permit relates; (d) that the vehicle or vehicles to which the permit relates are not driven in contravention of the provisions of S.72; (c) that the provisions of this Act limiting the hours of work of drivers are observed in connection with any vehicle or vehicles to which the permit relates; and (f) that the provisions of Chapter VIII so far as they apply to holder of the permit are observed". The power to cancel and suspend permits is given under S.60, Clause (a) which provides for such cancellation or suspension on the breach of any condition specified in sub-section 3 of S.59 or of any condition contained in the permit. It is not contended by the Respondent that any condition under S.59(3) has been violated but it is argued that the number of passengers' seats mentioned in column 5 of the permit is a condition of the permit, the violation of which entails cancellation or suspension of the permit. According to the petitioners this is only a description and not a condition of the permit. 3. This question was raised before the Madras High Court and it has been held that this is not a condition of the permit. The earlier of these decisions is In re Nagulatiah (AIR 1943 Mad. 283). That was a case in which the driver of the motor bus was prosecuted under S.123(1) read with S.42(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act for driving a bus with passengers in excess of the number specified in the permit. The earlier of these decisions is In re Nagulatiah (AIR 1943 Mad. 283). That was a case in which the driver of the motor bus was prosecuted under S.123(1) read with S.42(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act for driving a bus with passengers in excess of the number specified in the permit. The permit of the bus was in form P. S. P. under R.159(1) of the Madras Rules and the number of passengers' seats as well as the maximum laden weight of the vehicle were stated in the respective columns of the same. Byers, J. held that although the permit in form P.S.P. included details of the number of passengers' seats in the vehicle overloading was not a breach of the conditions of the permit. It may be stated here that the form of the permits involved in these petitions is the same as in the case referred to above. Another case on the point which is unreported is Vedachala Mudaliar v Central Road Traffic Board, Madras (C. M. P 6295 of 1948) Rajamannar, C.J., and Somasundaram, J. held that the entry in the permit regarding the number of passengers' seats was not one of the conditions of the permit. This decision was followed in In re Gannon Dunkerly & Co. Ltd., (AIR 1950 Madras 837) The question which arose for decision in that case was not one of overloading of a bus, but carrying furniture in a private lorry, the permit of which described the nature of the goods to be carried as building materials. Somsundaram, J. held that the purposes for which the lorry could be "used" could not be confined to carrying building materials, as that was only a piece of description of the particulars required for the licensing authorities so that they may be in a position to issue a permit. It was further pointed out that it could not be assumed that all the particulars noted in the permit amounted to conditions of the permit since such particulars as the name of the father of the appellant, the address of the applicant etc. which had also to be stated in the permit could not be deemed conditions. We may in this connection refer to a decision of the Travancore-Cochin High Court in Balagangatharan v. The General Road Traffic Board (1956 K.L.T. 791) to which one of us was a party. which had also to be stated in the permit could not be deemed conditions. We may in this connection refer to a decision of the Travancore-Cochin High Court in Balagangatharan v. The General Road Traffic Board (1956 K.L.T. 791) to which one of us was a party. That also was a case of suspension of the permit, of a bus on the ground that it was found overloaded. It was held that the decision in In Re Nagulatiah was not applicable as the permit contained, not merely an entry regarding the number of passenger's seats but also a condition that there should not be any overloading It was therefore held that the order of suspension was proper as there was breach of one of the conditions of permit. 4. Our attention was drawn to an unreported decision of M. S. Menon J, in O.P. No. 358 of 1955. It was held in that case that the mention of the number of passengers' seats was a condition of the permit and that breach of the same by carrying a greater number of passengers justified suspension of the permit. The permit in that case was in 1 Form 34 appended to the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1952 and the seating capacity was mentioned as 11. The permit was cancelled as the vehicle was found overloaded. In Column 14 of the permit dealing "other conditions" it was stated that the permit was liable to be terminated at any time without previous notice and 61/2 pies per mile for a passenger should be the maximum fare levied oh passengers. Though it was not stated among "other conditions" that there should be no overloading, it was held that the maximum number of passengers had been mentioned in column 5 of the permit, that this was one of the conditions of the permit and that carrying more passengers therefore amounted to a breach of a condition of the permit. Though it was not stated among "other conditions" that there should be no overloading, it was held that the maximum number of passengers had been mentioned in column 5 of the permit, that this was one of the conditions of the permit and that carrying more passengers therefore amounted to a breach of a condition of the permit. The decision reported in A.I.R. 1950 Madras 837 was cited in that case but that was distinguished on the ground that while the permit in that case was in Form No. 36 which did not contain a column "other conditions" but only "conditions" the permit involved in original petition, 358 was in Form No. 34 column 15 of which dealt with "other conditions." Significance was attached to the addition of the word "other" before the word 'conditions' in Form No. 34. It was also stated that the decision in CMP No. 6296 of 1948 Madras was not made available at the time of hearing. We are of opinion that the mere addition of the word "other" before "conditions" in Forms Nos. 33 or 34 does not lead to the inference that the particulars stated in column 5 of Forms Nos. 33 and 34 amount to a condition of the permit. Some of the entries in columns 1 to 14 no doubt amount to conditions of the permit but not all. Form No. 33 contains a proviso which states "that no interruption is caused to the stage carriage service and subject to the following conditions." The conditions thus specifically referred to in Form No. 33 relate to the particulars to be stated in columns 13 and 14. The seating capacity is one of the particulars to be mentioned in the application for permit as well as the permit and it is one of the matters to be taken into consideration by the Regional Transport Authority in granting or refusing a permit. It is necessary to mention this for other purposes also such as for taxation, as the vehicle tax payable on stage carriages depends on the number of passengers' seats. There is thus need to mention the number of passengers' seats in the permit. It is necessary to mention this for other purposes also such as for taxation, as the vehicle tax payable on stage carriages depends on the number of passengers' seats. There is thus need to mention the number of passengers' seats in the permit. The fact that in certain permits as the one 1 involved in the case reported in 1956 K.L.T. 792, it was specifically mentioned that there should be no overloading makes it clear that whenever it is intended as one of the conditions of the permit, it is expressly stated so. It was open for the Regional Transport Authorities to incorporate such a condition also among "other conditions" but that was not done in the case of these vehicles. As stated earlier a copy of the decision in Vedachala Mudaliar v. Central Road Traffic Board, Madras was not available when O.P. No. 358 of 1955 was decided. It may also be pointed out that there is a distinction between Forms Nos. 33 and 34 so far as column 5 is concerned. While Form No. 34 provides for "the maximum number of passengers", the relative column No. 5 in Form 33 mentions "the number of passengers' seats." The permit of the vehicle involved in O. P. No. 358 of 1955 was in Form No 34. It is not possible to say that a conclusion different from ours would have been reached in O. P. 358 of 1955 but for the nonavailability of relevant precedents and the difference in the Forms referred to above We therefore agree with the view of the Madras High Court and hold that the mere mention of the number of passengers' seats in the permit of a vehicle does not amount to a condition of the permit. The Original Petitions must therefore be allowed. 5. In the result we allow all the four petitions and quash the orders suspending the permits of stage carriages T. C. Q. III, T. C. K. 1654, T.C.Q 1548 and T. C. K. 2732 In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.