Judgment :- 1. The petitioner questions the validity of the order cancelling the routes of the permit of his private carriage. A private carriage permit No. P.P.C. No. 4/C1/62 was issued to the petitioner for K.L.O.2781 to ply along 40 routes mentioned in the list attached to the permit. Subsequently three other routes were also sanctioned for which the pay-load was limited to 3 tons on the Neendakara bridge. Ext. P-1 is the copy of the permit. The permit which was valid upto 19-7-1967 was cancelled by an order dated 9-6-1964 by the Regional Transport Authority, Quilon, in respect of the routes passing through Quilon-Alleppey road. The petitioner's contention is that the Regional Transport Authority has no jurisdiction to cancel the routes passing through the Alleppey - Ernakulam route in respect of its vehicle and that it was not heard before the order cancelling the routes of the permit was passed. 2. The permit was cancelled in respect of the particular routes apparently on the basis of a letter from the Executive Engineer, Building and Roads, Quilon, stating that the condition of the Neendakara bridge is not fit for lorry traffic. The petitioner's submission that the R.T.A. has no jurisdiction to pass Ext. P-3 order has to be accepted. S.60 of the Motor Vehicles Act has application only to the cancellation of a permit on the grounds mentioned in the section. None of the grounds mentioned in S.60, which would authorise the R.T.A. to cancel or suspend a permit is present in this case. The learned Government Pleader, appearing on behalf of the R.T.A., Quilon, has not been able to point out any other section in the Motor Vehicles Act which would authorise the R.T.A, to cancel the route in respect of a permit on the ground that a bridge in the route is unsafe for vehicular traffic. Mr. Krishnan Nair, appearing for the petitioner, referred me to S.74 of the Motor Vehicles Act and submitted that that is the only section which deals with the matter, and that according to the section, it is only the State Government or an authority authorised in that behalf by the State Government that can pass an order prohibiting or restricting the driving of motor vehicles over a particular bridge if it is found that the bridge is unsafe for vehicular traffic. The section is as follows: "The State Government or any authority authorised in this behalf by the State Government if satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of public safety or convenience, or because of the nature of any road or bridge, may by notification in the Official Gazette, prohibit or restrict, subject to such exceptions and conditions as may be specified in the notification, the driving of motor vehicles or of any specified class of motor vehicles or the use of trailers either generally in specified area or on a specified road; and when any such prohibition or restriction is imposed, shall cause appropriate traffic signs to be placed or erected under S.75 at suitable places: Provided that where any prohibition or restriction under this section is to remain in force for not more than one month, notification thereof in the Official Gazette shall not be necessary, but such local publicity as the circumstances may permit, shall be given of such prohibition or restriction." It is not claimed that the R.T.A., Quilon, has been authorised by the State Government to exercise the jurisdiction under the section. I therefore hold that the R.T.A. has no jurisdiction to cancel the routes of the permit. I set aside Ext. P-3 order passed by the R.T.A. and allow the writ petition. No Costs. Allowed.