ORDER Dixit C.J. 1. By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing two orders, namely, one, of the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa, dated the 24th June 1962, renewing a stage carriage permit for a single trip on Harpalpur Kishangarh route held by the respondent No. 3, Sardar Gopal Singh, and the other of the State Transport Appellate Authority, upholding in appeal on 15th April 1964 the aforesaid order of the Regional Transport Authority. 2. The petitioner, as also the non-applicant No. 3, had applied for a return-trip permit on the route. The Regional Transport Authority, Rewa, selected the petitioner for the grant of a return-trip permit. But this order of the Regional Transport Authority was modified by the State Transport Appellate Authority in an appeal preferred by Gopalsingh and the Appellate Authority granted a single trip permit on the route to the petitioner as well as to the non-applicant No. 3. In due course, the petitioner applied for renewal of his single-trip permit. When the non-applicant No. 3 also applied for the renewal of his single-trip permit, the petitioner objected to the renewal and claimed a permit for himself for another single-trip. The Regional Transport Authority rejected the petitioner's objection to the renewal of the permit held by the non-applicant No. 3. Thereupon the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority against the order dated 24th June 1962 of the Regional Transport Authority renewing the, non-applicant Gopalsingh's permit, which was rejected. 3. The Regional Transport Authority rejected the petitioner's objection to the renewal of the permit held by the non-applicant No. 3. Thereupon the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority against the order dated 24th June 1962 of the Regional Transport Authority renewing the, non-applicant Gopalsingh's permit, which was rejected. 3. The only point that Shri Sen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, urged before us was that after the order of the Appellate Authority granting a single-trip permit on the route to the non-applicant Gopal Singh was made on 31st August 1961 no permit in the form prescribed by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and the C.P. and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules 1940, as in force in the Vindhya Pradesh region, was ever issued to him; that Gopal Singh did not apply for one; that all that he obtained was an 'authorisation slip' from the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Rewa, 11th September 1961 permitting him to run stage carriage No. MPA-2034 on the route in question; that it was on the basis of this slip that Gopalsingh was operating his single-trip service all along and even on the day when he applied for renewal; that as Gopal Singh did not hold any permit, the application filed by him for "renewal" could not be regarded as any application for renewal of a permit; and that it was nothing but an application for renewal of the "authorisation slip" which was issued to the non-applicant No 3 on 11th September 1961 and on that application a renewed permit could not be granted to Gopal Singh. Learned counsel referred us to sections 48 and 68 (2) (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and rules 51 and 61 of the C.P. and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940, to show 'that the" authorisation slip" granted to Gopal Singh on 11th September 1961 was not any permit under the Act and the Rules, and the application which he made for the renewal of the "authorisation slip", which was not accompanied by Part-A of the permit, was not any application for renewal of a permit. It was submitted that Gopal Singh had no right to apply for renewal of permit when he held none and the renewal of a non-existing permit in his favour on the application made by him was totally illegal. 4. It was submitted that Gopal Singh had no right to apply for renewal of permit when he held none and the renewal of a non-existing permit in his favour on the application made by him was totally illegal. 4. In our judgment, the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner must be given effect to Section 42 of the Act prohibits the use of a transport vehicle in any public place, save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional Or State Transport Authority authorising the use of the vehicle. Section 2 (20) defines "permit" as "the document issued by the Commission or a State or Regional Transport Authority authorising the use of a transport vehicle as a contract carriage, or stage-carriage or authorising the owner as a private carrier or public carrier to use such vehicle". Section 48 deals with the grant of stage carriage permits and the conditions, which the Regional Transport Authority may subject to any rules made under the Act, attach to the permit. Section 58 (1) lays down inter alia that a stage-carriage permit "shall be effective without renewal for such period, not less than three years and not more than five years, as the Regional Transport Authority may specify "in the permit". Section 68 (2) (c) gives to the State Government the power to make rules in respect of the forms to be used for perm its. Rule 51 is as follows- "51 (a) Every permit shall be in one of the following forms, that is to say;- (i) in respect of a particular stage carriage in Form P. St. P. (ii) in respect of a service of stage carriage in Form P. St. S. Rule 62 required that the registration mark of the vehicle must be entered in the permit. Sub rule (b) of this Rule reads thus- "No permit shall be issued until the registration mark of the vehicle to which it relates has, if the form of permit so requires, been entered therein and in the event of any applicant failing to produce the certificate of registration within the prescribed period the Regional Transport Authority may revoke its sanction of the application." Rule 61, which deals with applications for renewal of permits, in so far as it is material here, is as follows- "61. (a) Application for the renewal of a permit shall be made, in writing to the Regional Transport Authority by which the permit was issued, not less than two months, in the case of a stage carriage permit or a public carrier's permit, and not less than one month in other cases, before the expiry of the permit, and shall be accompanied by Part A of the permit." 5. It will be seen from the above provisions that a stage-carriage cannot run without a permit in the form prescribed by Rule 51, and no permit can be issued until the registration mark of the vehicle to which it relates has been entered therein. Again, under section 58 (1) of the Act the period for which a permit is to be effective without renewal has to be specified in the permit. An application for renewal of a permit granted in the form prescribed by Rule 51 and containing the prescribed particulars must be made within the time prescribed by the proviso to section 58 (2) of the Act taking the date of expiry of the permit as specified therein. An application for renewal must also be accompanied by Part A of the permit as enjoined by Rule 61. The Rules referred to above are mandatory and must be treated "for all purposes of construction or obligation exactly as if they were in the Act" and have the same effect as if contained in the Act. They cannot be regarded as merely administrative directions. 6. Now, here, admittedly the non applicant Gopal Singh did not obtain a permit in the form prescribed by Rule 51 after the Appellate Authority had made an order on 31st August 1961 granting a single trip permit to him for the route in question. It is not clear as to why no permit was issued to the said non-applicant when the petitioner himself was given a proper permit. Shri Tankha, learned counsel appearing for Gopal Singh, said that despite repeated applications of Gopal Singh no permit was issued by the Regional Transport Authority because of the influence of the petitioner. There is no material to support the suggestion. Shri Tankha, learned counsel appearing for Gopal Singh, said that despite repeated applications of Gopal Singh no permit was issued by the Regional Transport Authority because of the influence of the petitioner. There is no material to support the suggestion. If, as suggested by learned counsel for Gopal Singh, the petitioner had considerable influence over the Regional Transport Authority and he was trying to prevent the operation of a single-trip service by Gopal Singh, then Gopal Singh would not have got even the "authorisation slip" permitting him to run his vehicle. The strange fact however remains that even till the date of applying for 'renewal' Gopal Singh contended himself by running his vehicle on the "authorisation slip" issued to him on 11th September 1961, and the authorities allowed him to do so without raising any objection. The "authorisation slip" cannot in any sense be regarded as a valid permit under the Act in the form prescribed by Rule 51. It does not even specify the period for which it was to be effective without renewal. Nor does it embody the usual conditions which are to be found in a permit. As the non-applicant Gopal Singh never obtained any permit, there could be no question of renewal of a non-existing permit. The application which he made was nothing but an application for renewal of the "authorisation slip" issued to him on 11th September 1961. There is no provision in the Act or the rules sanctioning the issue of an "authorisation slip' of the type issued to the opponent Gopal Singh and permitting the renewal of such a slip. Section 58 speaks of renewal of permits. As the opponent Gopal Singh did not hold any permit, his application for renewal, which was not accompanied by Part A of any permit, was clearly misconceived and incompetent. On such an invalid application, the Regional Transport Authority had no power to grant to the appellant No. 3 renewal of permit when he did not hold any, and the Appellate Authority erred in up-holding the order of the Regional Transport Authority. 7. Shri Tankha, learned counsel for Gopal Singh, submitted that before the Regional Transport Authority and the Appellate Authority the petitioner never raised the objection that Gopal Singh's application for renewal was invalid. 7. Shri Tankha, learned counsel for Gopal Singh, submitted that before the Regional Transport Authority and the Appellate Authority the petitioner never raised the objection that Gopal Singh's application for renewal was invalid. It is true that there is no mention whatsoever in the orders of the Regional Transport Authority and the Appellate Authority of any objection of the petitioner to the validity of the application for renewal filed by Gopal Singh. There is nothing on record to indicate whether the objection was actually raised before the Regional Transport Authority. But from the written arguments, which Jogendra Singh filed before the Appellate Authority, it is plain that he did raise the objection that no permit was ever issued to Gopol Singh and his application for renewal was invalid. The Appellate Authority did not at all deal with this question. Even if the objection had not been raised before the Regional Transport Authority, the Appellate Authority should have considered it as it went to the root of the matter and when Jogendra Singh, who appeared in person at the time of the hearing of the appeal, raised the objection in his written submissions. 8. For all these reasons, our conclusion is that on the application made by him, the non-applicant Gopal Singh, who did not hold any permit, was not entitled to get any renewed permit. This application is, therefore, allowed, and the decisions of the Regional Transport Authority, Rewa, and the State Transport Appellate Authority granting a renewed permit to Gopal Singh on Harpalpur-Kishangarh route are quashed. The petitioner shall have costs of this application. Counsel's fee is fixed at Rs. 100. The outstanding amount of security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner.