MEHROTRA, C. J. : The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority Dhubri on the 26th December 1960 issued a noti­fication inviting applications within 25th January 1961, from the existing permit holders and the interested public for granting periodic contract carriage permit for there years for North Bank of Goalpara District, centres, Dhubri Bilasipara and Bongaigaon in pursuance of the aforesaid notification the petitioner filed in the prescribed form and applied for periodic contract carriage permits for three years. The respondent No. 6 to the present petition al-so applied for renewal of the permit. Thereafter the applications were considered by the Regional Transport Authority in its meeting held on the 25th and 27th March 1961. The application of the petitioner for grant of the contract carriage permit was rejected by an order dated the 12th April 3.961. The order has been filed along with the petition as annexure 'B'. It reads as follows: 'Your application for a contract carriage Per­mit for Dhubri, Bilasipara and Bongrngon centres dated 25-1-61 has been rejected by the Regional Transport Authority, Dhubri in its meeting held on '[25th and 27th March 1961 on the ground that there was no room for you after allotment of per­mits made to the applicants''. The petitioner went up in appeal against the aforesaid order of the Regional Transport Autho­rity to the State Transport Authority and the ap­peal was rejected. The grant of permits to the res­pondents was upheld and the order of the Regio­nal Transport Authority rejecting the petitioner's application for contract carriage permit was also upheld- It is against these orders that the present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. (2) The petitioner prays that the Orders pass­ed by the Regional Transport Authority and the State Transport Authority be quashed. A number of points have been raised by the petitioner- fie has firstly contended that on all the dates when the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority was held the authority was not properly constitu­ted, inasmuch as Shri R. N. Goswami the District Transport Officer who by virtue of his office was the ex-officer member and Secretary of the Regio­nal Transport Authority, handed over charge on the 26th March 1961 to Sri Madhab Pas and from that date he was not entitled to participate in the .deliberations of the Regional Transport Autho­rity. He however on the 27th March 1961 was present in the meeting and participated in its deli­berations. The entire proceedings therefore are without jurisdiction and a writ of certiorari should be issued quashing the order passed, by the Regio­nal Transport Authority and that of States Trans­port Authority. A number of other points have also been raised challenging the validity of the proceedings. As we accept the contention of the petitioner on this point, it is not necessary to go into the other contentions raised by the petitioner. (3) The petitioner in paragraph 7 of the peti­tion has stated that the name of .the petitioner as well as of the respondents 6, 7 and 8 and other applicants was duly published in the Assam Gazette. The Regional Transport Authority was constituted with the following members: Deputy Commissioner - Ex-officio Chair­man, District Transport Officer, Ex-officio Secre­tary, Superintendent of Police, Executive Engineer, Manikanta Das, Khagendra Nath, Satig Basumatari, Syed Ahmed Ali, Golok Chandra Patgiri. In the same paragraph it is stated clearly that Sri R. N. Goswami who was the District Transport Officer and as such Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority, handed over charge on the 26th March 1961 to Sri Madhab Das and from the said elate he ceased, to be a member of the Regional Transport Authority and Sri Madhab Das became a member and the Secretary of the Regional Trans­port Authority. The application of the petitioner was considered on the 27th March 1961 and on that .date Sri R. N. Goswami, although he ceased to be a member of the Regional Transport Authority, was present and took part in the deliberations of the meeting. To the same effect is the averment in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the petition. The contents of these paragraphs are verified, to the information derived by the petitioner from sour­ces which he believed to be true. (4) A counter-affidavit has been filed on be­half cf the Secretary, State Transport Authority, Assam and the Regional Transport Authority. In paragraph 5. of the .Counter-affidavit it is stated that the applications for permits were considered on the 25th March, 1961 and the allotment of the permits was also made on that very date. Shri R. N- Goswaini, who was the Secretary of the Re­gional Transport Authority, attended the meeting on 25th March in his own capacity. Mr. In paragraph 5. of the .Counter-affidavit it is stated that the applications for permits were considered on the 25th March, 1961 and the allotment of the permits was also made on that very date. Shri R. N- Goswaini, who was the Secretary of the Re­gional Transport Authority, attended the meeting on 25th March in his own capacity. Mr. Goswami however handed over his charge to Sri M- C. Das in the afternoon of the 26th March, 1961 and though he attended a meeting held on 27-3-1961 it was only as a special invitee and in this meeting no consideration or allotment of any permit was made. This paragraph is verified to the knowledge of Mr. R. H. Shaw, I. A. S., Secretary, State Transport Authority, Assam. Shillong. Obviously he can have no personal knowledge of the proceed­ings held on the 2,7th March, 1961. (5) Opposite party NO. 6 in paragraph 9 of his affidavit has stated that Shri R. N. Goswami was present in the meeting of the 27th March 1961 and he was retained there because he had the experience of the locality. It is true that this. paragraph is verified on his belief but nonetheless the paragraph clearly admits- the presence of Mr. Goswami in .the meeting of the 27th March 1961-The order by which the application of the petitioner has been rejected also expressly mentions-that the Regional Transport Authority at its meeting held on the 25th and 27th March 196.1 rejec­ted the application of the petitioner on the ground-that the allotment has already been made. (6) In the counter-affidavit; filed by the Secretary. State Transport Authority, the only statement made is that the applications were conside­red on the 25th March 1961 and the allotment of the permits wag also made on that very date and in the meeting of the 27th March 1961 no consi­deration or allotment of any permit was made. Even assuming that tin's statement is correct it does not expressly .deny the fact that the order re­jecting the petitioner's application was passed on the 27th March. Assuming even the statement to be correct that the applications were conside­red on the 25th March and. the allotment of per­mits was also made on that date, there is nothing, in the counter-affidavit to indicate that when the application of the petitioner was rejected on the 27th March, 1961- Mr. Assuming even the statement to be correct that the applications were conside­red on the 25th March and. the allotment of per­mits was also made on that date, there is nothing, in the counter-affidavit to indicate that when the application of the petitioner was rejected on the 27th March, 1961- Mr. Goswami was not present There, nor is it specifically mentioned in the counter affidavit that the petitioner's, application was not rejected on the 27th March. In their meeting of the 27th March the members of the Regional Transport Authority may have decided to reject the petitioner's application on the ground that several allotments have already been made, but nonetheless the application was considered on-the 27th March and the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority was held both on the 25th and the 27th March. The order by which the application of the present petitioner has been re­jected also indicates that the whole matter was disposed of in the meeting held on the 25th and 27th March .1.9.6.1. (7) The contention of the petitioner is not that the order is vitiated as it was biased. The contention is that on the date when the petitioner's application was rejected, the Regional Transport Au­thority was not properly constituted inasmuch as a non-member also participated in its delibera­tions. Section 44 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') specifies the constitution of the Transport Authorities. On 27-3-1061, when the meeting was held, it was not held by the properly constituted Regional Transport j Authority, but by a body consisting Of the mem­bers of the Regional Transport Authority and a non-member also. Under those circumstances the proceedings were entirely without any jurisdiction. (8) The junior Government Advocate relies upon S. 50 of the Act which provides: that when a contract carriage permit is considered it is open to the Regional Transport Authority to take into consideration any representations which may then be made or which may previously have been made by persons already holding contract carriage per­mits in the region or by any local authority or police authority in the region to the effect that the number of contract carriages for which per­mits have already been granted is sufficient for Of in excess of the needs of the region or any area within the region. The argument is that on the 27th March, 1961 when Mr. The argument is that on the 27th March, 1961 when Mr. R. N. Goswami was present, he was there only in his capacity as a local authority and his views could be taken into consideration under section 50 of the Act with re­gard to the necessity of the number of contract carriage permits in ''hat area and on the. 27th March his opinion with regard to the matter enu­merated in section 50 was taken. We do not, see any force in this contention. In the first place it is difficult: to accept the contention of the junior Government Advocate that Mr. Goswami who had handed over charge to Sri M. C. Das can be regarded as a local authority. Apart from it, it does not appear from the proceedings that Mr. Goswami was mainly consulted regarding the ques­tion of the necessity of the number of contract carriage permits within this area. He in fact participated in the deliberations as a mem­ber of the Regional Transport Authority on the 27th March and in that view of the matter the entire proceedings of the meeting held on date are vitiated. It is not necessary to deal with the cases cited by the counsel for the petitioner. Only reference may be made to the cases of R. v- Surrey (North Eastern) Assessment Committee a 933-1 KB 776, 'R. v. Salford Assessment Com­mittee, 1937-2 All ER 98, 'Cooper v. Wilson' 1937-2 All ER 726 and 'Commissioner of Burdwan Division v. Mrinal Kani Chatterjee", AIR 1959 Cal 026. The proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority held on the 25th and 27th March, 1981, are quashed. The order of the State Transport Authority in appeal is also quashed. The Regional Transport Authority will act in ac­cordance with law. The application is allowed with cost which is assessed at Rs. 50/- (9) S. K. DUTTA, J. : I agree. CF/V-S.B. Application allowed