ORDER Lakshmi Prasad, J. - This reference and reference No. 48 of 1964 arise in identical circumstances. Both these references have been made by Civil and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur by his order dated 31st July, 1964. 2. The present reference has been made on the application of Pati Ram driver and Mohammad Yasin owner of the vehicle. The other reference has been made on the application of Charan Singh driver and Kastoori Lal owner of the vehicle. 3 Each of the said two owners was given a public carrier permit by the Rule T.A., Nainital by its resolution dated 24th April, 1961. It appears that the Secretary while issuing the permit attached a condition thereto that the permit-holder shall carry goods only booked by Tehri Garhwal Motor Operators Union. Mohammad Yasin and Pati Ram came to be prosecuted Under Sections 42/123 of the Motor Vehicles Act on the allegation that on 6th July, 1961, the vehicle of Mohammad Yasin driven by Pati Ram was found carrying goods in contravention of the aforesaid condition. Likewise Kastoori Lal and Charan Singh came to be prosecuted Under Sections 42/123 of the Motor Vehicles Act on the allegation that the vehicle of Kastoori Lal while being driven by Gharan Singh on 23rd July, 1961 was found carrying goods in contravention of that condition. 4. In each case the accused challenged their prosecution on two grounds. The first contention raised by them was that the Secretary had no authority to attach any such condition when the Rule T.A. had not imposed any such condition in the resolution by which they were given permit and as such a contravention of such a condition could not be a basis for their prosecution. The other contention was that even if the Secretary be taken to be competent to impose such a condition, the condition itself not being in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (I) of Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act was illegal & hence the contravention thereof could not be a basis for their prosecution. 5. None of the two contentions found favour with the Magistrate who accordingly convicted all the four applicants and sentenced them to pay fines. Hence the applicants moved applications in revision before the Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, 6. 5. None of the two contentions found favour with the Magistrate who accordingly convicted all the four applicants and sentenced them to pay fines. Hence the applicants moved applications in revision before the Sessions Judge, Saharanpur, 6. The Sessions Judge has accepted the stand of the applicants that the Secretary was not competent to impose the condition under consideration and has accordingly made these references. 7. I have heard the applicant's counsel and the Assistant Government Advocate. I have gone through the resolution dated 24th April, 1961 which is reproduced in the judgment of the Sessions Judge and under which permits were granted to applicants Kastoori Lal and Mohammad Yasin. It is obvious therefrom that the Rule T.A. while granting the permit did not impose any such condition. My attention has been drawn to Section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 44A of the Motor Vehicles Rules. It is clear therefrom that it is only the Rule T.A. who is competent to grant a public carrier permit and the delegation in the matter of grant of permits made to the Secretary does not pertain to the grant of a public carrier permit. I am thus satisfied that the view expressed by the Sessions Judge on that point is correct. 8. In view of the position that the two references have to be accepted on the ground that the condition in the instant case was attached by the Secretary who was not competent to do so, it is not necessary to enter into the other question if or not such a condition can at all be imposed. I leave that point accordingly. 9. For the reasons given above, I accept both the references and set aside the conviction of the applicants u/s 42/123 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Fines, if realized shall be refunded.