Judgment :- 1. The writ petitioner is a company, and plies under valid permit a stage carriage with registration No. MDX 884 on the route between Kasargod and Sulliya via Adhur. That permit has been, under S.60 of the Motor Vehicles Act, suspended for a month, on the ground of the petitioner's having plied from May 1,1957 to May 3, 1957 the bus without any current certificate of fitness. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal had failed, though the period of suspension been reduced to a week. Various grounds have been taken against the aforesaid orders in the writ petition, two of which are: firstly, that the suspension under the section is illegal because such an order can only be passed under S.123, and the next is that the Secretary who had directed the suspension has no authorisation under S.123, and the order would be without jurisdiction. It is further urged that the initial error vitiating the exercise of jurisdiction would not be curable by the exercise of the appellate power in the case. 2. We think the first ground is sufficiently supported by decisions. In Puran Singh v. State of U. P. (AIR. 1959 All. 489) it has been held that a person proceeded against for not having certificate of fitness, cannot be punished under S.60, because the effect of S.22, read with S.38 and 41 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is that a vehicle would not be deemed to be duly registered without a certificate of fitness under S.38. The learned judge has held that the result of absence of certificate of fitness is to render the vehicle as though not registered in accordance with S.22, and any contravention of the Section is punishable under S.123. The relevant extract from the aforesaid judgment reads thus: "A contravention of S.22 is punishable under S.123 which makes punishable the driving of a motor vehicle in contravention of S.22. The proper course in this case, would therefore, have been to proceed against the petitioner under S.123. In any case, S.60 failed to confer the jurisdiction on the Transport Authority to suspend the permit." The order in the case was accordingly quashed. This Court has in Oommen v. Secretary, RTA. Kottayam (O.P. No. 327/59 decided on August 2,1960) followed the aforesaid decision. In any case, S.60 failed to confer the jurisdiction on the Transport Authority to suspend the permit." The order in the case was accordingly quashed. This Court has in Oommen v. Secretary, RTA. Kottayam (O.P. No. 327/59 decided on August 2,1960) followed the aforesaid decision. It follows that there are two decisions taking the view that failure to have certificate of fitness cannot be proceeded against under S.60, but would be punishable under S.123. The learned Government Pleader fairly conceded the correctness of the aforesaid proposition; and it is, therefore, clear that the order against the writ petitioner cannot be sustained, and must be vacated. 3. As the petition succeeds on the first ground, we do not propose to decide the next, which can be adjudicated where the decision on the point be inevitable for the proper disposal of the petition. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we make no order for costs. Allowed.