NAYUDU, C. J. : The point for considera­tion m this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether the order passed by the authorities nudes the Motor Vehicles Act (here­inafter called 'the Act') granting an additional contract carriage permit to respondent No. 3 Shri Anil Kumar Aich Roy at Hojai. when the provisional permit granted to him was being terminated on account of the appeal filed by respondent No. 1 Mrs. Tamal Rani Dey being allowed is valid (2) The facts briefly are that respondent No. 4 Mrs. Tamal Rani Dey had been granted a contract carriage permit on the Hojai bus route. This permit was cancelled and against this order o] cancellation she appealed lo the Appellate Board of the State Transport Auth­ority, who allowed the appeal and restored the permit of respondent No. 4 Tamal Rani. The Appellate Board, however, considered that as a result of allowing the appeal the present res­pondent No. 3 Shri Anil Kurnai Aich Roy to whom the Regional Transport Authority allotted the permit following cancellation of the permit of the present respondent No. 4, would auto­matically be thrown out. Apparently seeing the hardship in the case and noticing that respon­dent No. 3 was an ex-serviceman making honest attempts to rehabilitate himself, the Appellate Board ordered the granting of an additional contract carriage permit at Hojai centre in favour of respondent No. 3. The petitioner Shri Bhaba Kanta Bora is the Secretary of Hojai Contract Carriage Syndicate and the point rais­ed on his behalf is that the additional contract permit should not have been granted without giving adequate notice to the parties interested in the matter and without hearing their. (3) We have been taken through the provi­sions of the Act having relevancy to the ques­tion before us. Section 50 of the Act deals with the procedure of Regional Transport Authority in considering applications for contract carriage permits, and it reads as follows: - "50. (3) We have been taken through the provi­sions of the Act having relevancy to the ques­tion before us. Section 50 of the Act deals with the procedure of Regional Transport Authority in considering applications for contract carriage permits, and it reads as follows: - "50. A Regional Transport Authority shall, in considering an application for a contract carriage permit, have regard to the extent to which additional contract carriages may be necessary or desirable in the public interest; and shall also take into consideration any representa­tion 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 or in excess of the needs of the region or any area within the region" (4) A perusal of this section shows that be. fore an additional contract carriage permit is issued, the Regional Transport Authority should be satisfied that it is necessary of desirable to issue the permit in the public interest. Further, if any representation is made in connection with the granting or the refusal of the additional contract carriage permit, that representation would have to be taken into consideration in making an order under this section. Since the section contemplates the making of a representa­tion by persons interested, a certain degree of publicity seems to be required under the section before action is taken; for, without any publicity and notice, there could be no question of any representation Hence if a contract carriage permit is issued privately or in secret, then the purpose and object of the section would be defeated. But in the instant case it has been pointed out that publicity has not been given to the step which \vas going to be taken and that the petitioner had no opportunity on making a representation and objecting to the grant of the permit, either on the ground of public interest or on the ground that it is in excess of the requirement That this is true may be accepted. But we feel that it is not certainly a ground for justifying our interfer­ence in exercise of our extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. But we feel that it is not certainly a ground for justifying our interfer­ence in exercise of our extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. An executive authority or an authority exercising some form of quasi-judicial function may not strictly conform to the requirements of the section or follow the requisite procedure. But that by itself may not render the action of the authority totally void, or without jurisdiction or totally illegal, so as to call for our interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. (5) We trust that the correct procedure laid down under Section 50 of the Act in future cases will be followed by the authorities under the Act. (6) With the above observations, we dis­charge the rule and dismiss the petition, but make no order as to costs. (7) GOSWAMI, '. : I agree with the order passed in tins case (8) It is urged by Mr. Ghose, the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is implicit under Section 50 of the Act that there must be a prior publication of the application for a contract carriage permit. He, however, was un­able to show any section under the Act which warrants a prior publication of an application for a contract carriage permit. In this context it is convenient to quote Section 57 (3) of the Act, which relates to the procedure in applying for and granting stage carriage permits. It runs as follows: - "57 (3). On receipt of an application for a stage carriage permit or a public carrier's permit, the Regional Transport Authority shall make the application available for inspection at the office of the authority and shall publish the application or the substance thereof in the prescribed manner together with a notice of the date before which representations in connection therewith may be submitted and the date, not being less than thirty days from such publication. on which, and the time and place at which, the application and any representations received will be considered: ' There is a proviso to this sub-section, which is not necessary for the purpose of this case and is not quoted above. on which, and the time and place at which, the application and any representations received will be considered: ' There is a proviso to this sub-section, which is not necessary for the purpose of this case and is not quoted above. While in the case of a stage carriage permit under Section 57 (3) of the Act there is an obligation cast on the auth­orities granting a permit to make the applica­tion available for inspection by the public or people who are interested as also by publica­tion in the official Gazette, there is no obliga­tion for publication of an application for a contract carriage permit. Under Section 50 of the Act the authorities should take into con­sideration any representation which may be, made at the time of hearing or which may previously have been made by persons already j holding contract carriage permits in the region' or by any local authority or police authority in the region, and if there is no provision made in the rules or in the Act for a prior publication of the application for a contract carriage permit, the people who are interested, for instance, as in the instant case, the petitioner, who is runn­ing certain contract carriage permits, will be in complete ignorance of any application for a contract carriage permit. It appears that there is a lacuna in this behalf in the law and it will be for the State Government to make proper provision in the Rules in order to achieve the object of Sec. 50 of the Assam Motor Vehicles Act and to take appropriate steps for amend­ment of the rules made under Chapter IV there­of so that the representation clause under that section is not rendered otiose. Petition dismissed.