KAN SINGH, J.—This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by one Deep Singh who is questioning the validity of two resolutions of the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner Nos. 85 and 115 granting permits in favour of respondents Nos. 3 to 6 on Bikaner-Salasar route. He has also prayed for quashing an appellate order of the Transport Appellate Authority affirming the resolution No. 85. Resolution No. 115 was for fixing the limit of permits over the route. The relevant facts are briefly these:— 2. The petitioner holds a non-temporary stage carriage permit on the Bikaner Salasar via Nokha Sujangarh route. At a meeting held on 7/8/9-10.58, the Regional Transport Authority considered the question of opening the route Bikaner-Salasar and fixed the limit for permits at 12. The petitioner and all others were then granted permits on the route. The petitioner proceeds to say that this route was over lapped by several other routes namely, Jaipur-Bikaner, Bikaner-Nokha-Sujan-garh and Sujangarh-Salasar and consequently it was well served. Respondents Nos. 3 to 6 filed applications for grant of permits over the route. There were other applicants besides these respondents for grant of permits. The applications of the respondents were published for inviting objections on different dates. The petitioner claims to have filed objections against the applications of the respondents as and when they were published and this was done by him under certificates of posting. A meeting of the Regional Transport Authority was held on about 27/28 10.65. Agenda for this meeting is said to have been published on 21 10 65. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, the Regional Transport Authority is said to have heard the applications of the respondents for grant of permits, but no firm decision for granting the permits was taken. The petitioner however, came to know of the grant of permits to the respondents Nos. 3 to 6 and he, therefore, applied for a copy of the Regional Transport Authoritys resolution. The copy was furnished to him as late as on 20-4-66 and in the meantime three members of the Regional Transport Authority including the Chairman were transferred and had consequently ceased to hold their office as members of the Regional Transport Authority. 3 to 6 and he, therefore, applied for a copy of the Regional Transport Authoritys resolution. The copy was furnished to him as late as on 20-4-66 and in the meantime three members of the Regional Transport Authority including the Chairman were transferred and had consequently ceased to hold their office as members of the Regional Transport Authority. It is alleged that at the relevant time the Regional Transport Authority consisted of (1) Shri R.N. Hawa, Chairman (2) Shri K. N. Sharma, Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department ( Building & Roads ), (3) Shri N. C. Datta, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bikaner Range and (4) Major Narain Singh, Member Secretary was transferred from Bikaner on or about 17 2-65 Shri K. N. Sharma too was transferred on or about the same period. Shri R. N. Hawa had been transferred from his post of Chairman, Regional Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authority was reconstituted with Shri S. L. Agarwal as Chairman. The grievance of the petitioner is that long after Shri R.N., Hawa and other members of the Regional Transport Authority had ceased to hold office, they started preparing the minutes of the resolution for the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority held on 27/28-10-65. According to the petitioner, Shri Hawa noted in the resolution drafted by him that the applications were to be kept pending according to the State Transport Authoritys directions. The draft resolution or minutes, whatever they be called, were sent to other members for signatures. On receipt of such draft from the ex-Chairman the ex-Members are said to have disputed the correctness of the recording of the decision saying that at the meeting it was decided to grant the permits to respondents Nos. 3 to 6. On receipt of the comments of the Ex-Member Shri R.N. Hawa, the ex-Chairman, directed the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority to take action as per the directions of the other two members namely, the Superintending Engineer and the Deputy Inspector General of Police. This, according to the petitioner, was wrong as these erstwhile members had deliberated on the question after they had ceased to be Members of the Regional Transport Authority. Even apart from this according to the petitioner, the limit of permits for the route was subsequently raised from 12 to 18 by resolution No. 115. Aggrieved of the grant of the permits to respondents Nos. Even apart from this according to the petitioner, the limit of permits for the route was subsequently raised from 12 to 18 by resolution No. 115. Aggrieved of the grant of the permits to respondents Nos. 3 to 6 the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Transport Appellate Tribunal. At the hearing the respondents raised a preliminary objection against the maintainability of the appeal saying that the petitioner had not filed objections against the applications of the respondents for grant of permits. This preliminary objection prevailed with the Transport Appellate Tribunal who accordingly dismissed the petitioners appeal. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner is challenging the two resolutions of the Regional Transport Authority namely, resolutions No. 85 and 115 as also the appellate order of the Transport Appellate Tribunal. 3. It was contended, in the first place, that that Regional Transport Authority having already fixed the limit for permits at 12 could not have granted any additional permit without first revising the limit by an independent resolution. About this it is submitted that the applications for grant of permits as well as the item relating the fixation of scope were both fixed in the same meeting and whereas the applications for grajni of permits were shown as item No. 85, the subject of revising the scope was shown as item No. 115. According to this sequence, the petitioner urges, the Regional Transport Authority should be taken to have first dealt with the question of grant of permits, if it all, and then decided the question of scope which, according to the petitioner, was contrary to law and without jurisdiction. In the second place, it is contended that there was no proper notice of the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority. The notice, according to the petitioner should have been for one month. It is next contended that after the members of the Regional Transport Authority had ceased to be in Office they were not entitled to record the minutes in the manner they did. It has been pointed out that the record of the Regional Transport Authority shows a sharp difference in their opinion about the correct state of things and, therefore, the minimum that was expected of the Members was to have met and then to have recorded the minutes or the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority after being fully sure of the facts. In short, according to the petitioner, there was no proper resolution of the Regional Transport Authority for granting the permits to respondents Nos. 3 to 6. Lastly, it was contended that the Transport Appellate Tribunal was in error in thinking that the petitioner had not filed his objections. It was submitted that objections qua the other applications were undoubtedly there on record of the Regional Transport Authority and the certificates of posti-ing for filing the objections even against respondents Nos. 3 to 6 were produced and there was no reason to think that such objections were not received by the Regional Transport Authority or the concerning respondents. At best something must have happened in the Office of the Regional Transport Authority. The objections may have been either abstracted by some interested party or they may were mis-placed, but the petitioner maintains, that they were undoubtedly filed under a certificate of posting. 4. The writ petition has been opposed by the respondents Nos. 3 to 6. The respondents deny that the impugned resolution of the Regional Transport Authority or the appellate order of the Transport Appellate Tribunal was vitiated on any of the grounds stated by the petitioner. It was submitted that the petitioner has not, in fact, filed any objections against the respondents applications and, therefore, the Transport Appellate Tribunal was right in dismissing the petitioners appeal. As regards the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority it was submitted that the Regional Transport Authority first took up the question of revising the scope and then it passed the resolution about the granting of permits to the respondents. Thus, according to the respondents, sec. 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939, hereinafter to be referred as the "Act", was in no way contravened. As regards the recording of the minutes it was stated that resolution No. 85 was not correctly recorded, but when the Deputy Inspector General of Police brought to the notice of the other members that the resolution was to grant permits to the respondents the other members ultimately accepted the position that permits had been ordered to be granted and thus the minutes, according to the amendments suggested by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, reflected the correct position about the decision to grant the permits to respondents Nos. 3 to 6. 3 to 6. As regards the sufficiency of the notice of the meeting it was submitted that the notice of the meeting was reasonable. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. To clear up the position about the minutes recorded by the Regional Transport Authority the original record had been called and the parties were heard at length regarding it. As held by this Court in a number of cases, without fixing or revising the limits under sec. 47(3) of the Act as may be necessary the Regional Transport Authority is not competent to consider the applications for fresh or additional permits or to grant them. Since this was a jurisdictional matter I had carefully looked into the Regional Transport Authoritys record with a view to seeing: (1) whether the general order contemplated by sec 47(3) of the Act for fixing the limit for permits at 18 was passed prior to the Regional Transport Authoritys alleged order or resolution granting the permits to the respondents; (2) what was the correct position about the taking of the decision by the Regional Transport Authority for granting the permits to respondents Nos. 3 to 6. Before adverting to the Regional Transport Authoritys minutes of the meeting held on 28/29/30-10.65, I may refer to the agenda that was published in the gazette. 6. The agenda for the meeting was published by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner by a notice dated 12-10 65 which appeared in the Rajasthan Gazette of 21-10-65 It mentions that the next meeting of the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner would be held on 28/29/30-10 65 at 11.00 a.m. in the Chamber of the Deputy Inspector General of Police. The first item in the agenda was revision of the scope on the routes as published in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated 12-8-65 and the second item was the renewal and grant of the stage carriage permit on the existing route as published in Raj. Rajpatra dated 11-3-65, 8-4- 65, 20 5-65, 10-6-65, 8 7-65, 22-7-65, 26-8 65, 2-9 65 and 16-9 65. I am not concerned with the several other items in the agenda. From the serial order in this notice Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents, argues that it was in this very order that the matters were considered and accordingly the question of scope was decided first. I am not concerned with the several other items in the agenda. From the serial order in this notice Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents, argues that it was in this very order that the matters were considered and accordingly the question of scope was decided first. The argument has a convincing air around it no doubt, but from the agenda alone one cannot unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that the Regional Transport Authority had really decided the question of scope first and then took up the applications for grant of permits after passing the general order. The minutes of the Regional Transport Authority do not bring out this position. The file of the minutes records on the first page the following title: — "Minutes of the Meeting of the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner held on 29/22/30-10-65 in the Chamber of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bikaner." The presence of the members was noted and thereafter what is noted first is item No. 2 and against in is noted grant of renewal of stage carriage permits and fresh stage carriage permits." Then under item No. 2 there are a number of sub-items. The minutes go on and each sub-item is recorded ad seriatim and for each a resolution is recorded. At the end of each page there are the signatures of the members of the Regional Transport Authority. In this way one comes to resolution No. 85 which is under the major head Item No. 2. I may read that resolution:— Item No. 2(xxxix) Res. No 85 Grant of renewal on Bikaner-Salasar 123 miles A class route. The applicant Shri Kalu Singh S/o Shri Asu Singh of Bikaner has applied for the renewal of his permit on Bikaner Salasar, 123 miles long A class route. The vehicle is RJF 1184 of 1959 model. Application is in time and there are no objections. Resolved therefore that the permit of the applicant Shri Kalu Singh be renewed for a period of three years from the date of expiry. There are fresh applicants also on this route as given below and they are present or absent as noted against their names. The basis of the claim by the new applicants is also given against their names— (1) Shri Ram Swaroop Driver S/o Shri Maniram BKR Represented by Shri J.C. Chhangani Counsel-Driver mechanic. There are fresh applicants also on this route as given below and they are present or absent as noted against their names. The basis of the claim by the new applicants is also given against their names— (1) Shri Ram Swaroop Driver S/o Shri Maniram BKR Represented by Shri J.C. Chhangani Counsel-Driver mechanic. (2) Shri Narsingh dass Driver (absent) (3) Shri Badri Narain (absent) (4) Shri Shiv Narain Mundra s/o Shri Laxmi Narain (Present). He has a workshop (5) Shri Govind Singh s/o Shri Kalu Singh, Bikaner (Present). He is an Ex-Jagirdar. (6) Shri Asaram Sunar s/o Shri Labhuram Desnoke (Present). He is a Sunar by caste. (7) Shri Mahendra Kumar (absent). (8) Shri Pusharam Godara (absent). (9) Shri Pushpendra Singh (absent). The route is, however, A Glass and there are objections also. It is, therefore, hereby resolved that the applications of absentee applicants be rejected in default and those of the present ones be kept pending in view of S.T.A. directions. Announced." At the bottom of the page there are the signatures of Shri R. N. Hawa, Major Narain Singh and then Shri N. G. Datta appears to have put down his signature, but that was scored out. It is not easy to decipher Shri Dattas signature but by a magnifying glass one can form the impression that the Deputy Inspector General may have first signed it and then scored out his signature. At page 34 of the file there is a slip in type which is as follows:— "Some omission seems to have been made. This case was not kept pending as mentioned on page 32 item No. 2 Res. 85. Instead as per my record kept at that time of the meeting new permits were decided to be given in the names of: (1) Shri Ram Saroop Driver. (2) Shri Shive Narain Mundra. (3) Shri Govind Singh s/o Shri Kalu Singh. (4) Shri Asaram Sunar. and also directions were given to revise the timings. Sd/- K. K. Sharma, Superintending Engineer, P.W. D.B. & R. Bikaner. Sd/- N.C. Datta, Member R.T.A. Bikaner." On this slip there are two other signatures, one of Shri K. N. Sharma, Superintending Engineer, and another of Major Narain Singh, the Secretary, Regional Trans-port Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not possible to say as to when Shri K. N. Sharma and Major Narain Singh had appended their signatures. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not possible to say as to when Shri K. N. Sharma and Major Narain Singh had appended their signatures. Shri O.P. Gupta, however, on the other hand, suggests that these signatures must have been put after the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority had written a letter on 1-3-66 to Shri R. N. Hawa. This letter which is available at page 36 reads as follows: "Government of Rajasthan Letter No. 769 Dated 1-3-1966. From To The Secretary, Shri R. N. Hawa, I. A.S. Regional Transport Add. Chief Secretary to the Authority, Bikaner. Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur. Sub—Minutes of the Regional Transport Authority meeting dated 28/29/30 October, 1966, Sir, Kindly find herein in original page No. 32 of the proceedings along with a slip affixed by the Dy. Inspector General of Police Bikaner, Member, Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner regarding certain omissions in the Resolution No. 85 pertaining to Bikaner-Salasar route. The same may kindly be perused and correct position may be intimated while returning the same so that the said Resolution is finalised at the earliest. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Nand Lal, 1-3-66 Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner Region, Bikaner." It contains the following endorsement:— "Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner. Encl. 1. Returned with the remarks that it is difficult for me to say anything now, other members be please asked for necessary action. Sd/- R.N. Hawa, 9-3-66." On the reverse of this letter there is the following endorsement by the Secretary:— "Submitted to Shri K.N. Sharma, Ex-Member, Regional Transport Autho-rity, Bikaner for his views after consulting his agenda and notes. Sd/- Nand Lal, Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner Region, Bikaner. 14-3-66." I may add by way of parenthesis that by the time these minutes came to be recorded or when the correspondence aforesaid had taken place Shri Nandlal succeeded as the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority. Shri K.N. Sharma noted as follows:— "Forwarded with compliments to Shri R. N, Hawa, Ex-Chairman, Regional Transport Authority, Rajasthan, Jaipur to kindly deal. 14-3-66." I may add by way of parenthesis that by the time these minutes came to be recorded or when the correspondence aforesaid had taken place Shri Nandlal succeeded as the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority. Shri K.N. Sharma noted as follows:— "Forwarded with compliments to Shri R. N, Hawa, Ex-Chairman, Regional Transport Authority, Rajasthan, Jaipur to kindly deal. Sd/- K.N. Sharma." Below the endorsement of Shri K.N. Sharma is an endorsement of Shri R.N. Hawa who was at that time the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan :— "Secretary R.T.A. Bikaner for action as per directions of other two learned members S. E. & D. I. G. Sd/- R.N. Hawa." Then Shri Nandlal had forwarded the endorsement of Shri R. N. Hawa to Major Narain Singh and then there is the signature of Major Narain Singh. After this a letter was addressed by Shri Nandlal to Shri R. N. Hawa again on 13-4-66. It was mentioned therein that in the light of the correspondence attached by him for ready reference it had become necessary to re-draft the resolution No. 85 and he put up the draft for approval and signatures On this letter there is the endorsement of the Deputy Inspector General of Police saying that it may be approved. Shri K. N. Sharma, the Superintending Engineer had also signed it. When the matter reached Shri R. N. Hawa, who was at Jaipur, he appears to have had a talk on phone with the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority. Thereafter Shri R.N. Hawa noted on 22-4-66 as follows: — ^^Resolution igys gh fy[kk x;k gS& rewite djus dk izu gh ugha mBrkA okil nksA Sd/- R.N. Hawa." At page 38 there is a re-written resolution which runs as follows:— "Item No. 2(xxxix) --------------------Res. No. 85. Grant of renewal on Bikaner —Salasar, 128 miles A Class route. The applicant Shri Kalu Singh s/o Shri Asu Singh of Bikaner has applied for the renewal of his permit on Bikaner-Salasar, 128 miles long A Class route. The vehicle is RJF 1184 of 1969 model. Application is in time and there is no objection. Resolved therefore that the permit of the applicant Shri Kalu Singh be renewed for a period of three years from the date of expiry. There are fresh applications also on this route as given below and they are present or absent as noted against their names. Application is in time and there is no objection. Resolved therefore that the permit of the applicant Shri Kalu Singh be renewed for a period of three years from the date of expiry. There are fresh applications also on this route as given below and they are present or absent as noted against their names. The basis of the claim by the new applicants is also given against their names— (1) Shri Ram Swaroop Driver S/o Shri Mani Ram BKR Represented by Shri J.G. Chhangani counsel-Driver mechanic. (2) Shri Narsinghdass (Driver) (absent) (3) Shri Badri Narain (absent) (4) Shri Shiv Narain Mundra s/o Shri Laxmi Narain (present). He has a workshop. (5) Shri Govind Singh s/o Shri Kalu Singh Bikaner (present). He is an ex-Jagirdar. (6) Shri Asa Ram Sunar s/o Shir Labhu Ram Desnoke (present). He is a Sunar by caste. (7) Shri Mahendra Kumar (absent) (8) Shri Pusharan Godara (absent) (9) Shri Pushpendra Singh (absent). The following present ones (four in all) are granted one permit each valid for 3 years on the condition that they will engage vehicles of the prescribed model. They will also put vehicles on the road within 45 days from the date of receipt of order conveyed to them by the office. (1) Shri Ramswaroop Driver s/o Shri Maniram Bikaner. (2) Shri Shiv Narain Mundra s/o Shri Laxmi Narain. (3) Shri Govind Singh s/o Shri Kalu Singh Bikaner. (4) Shri Asa Ram Sunar s/o Shri Labhu Ram Deshnoke. It is also directed that the timings on the route in question will have to be revised in view of the grant of these extra permits. Sd/- K.N. Sharma, May be approved and issued. Sd/- N.G. Datta D.I.G.A. Bikn. 14.4.66." 7. Shri Gupta is right in suggesting that to start with when the Secretary wrote the letter on 1.3.66, the D.I.Gs slip reproduced above did dot bear the signatures of Shri K.N. Sharma and Major Narain Singh and they had subsequently signed the same after the Chairman had written to say that the Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner may take necessary action as per directions of the two learned members namely, the Superintending Engineer and the Dy. Inspector General of Police. Inspector General of Police. The most outstanding fact that stands prominently above this morass, if I may use this expression, is that the Chairman had declined to sign the rewritten resolution saying that the previous resolution is already there. The previous resolution available at page 35 and which I have reproduced above in extenso bears the signatures of the Chairman himself as also that of Major Narain Singh, the Member Secretary. Shri [ Gupta has tried to salvage this position by suggesting that all that Shri N.C. Datta, Deputy Inspector General of Police had noted in the slip at page 34 should be taken to be the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority. I am afraid, that cannot have the status of a resolution of the R. T. Authority. That slip only notes that some omission seems to have taken place. The case, according to the slip was not kept pending, but according to the record kept by Shri Datta permits were decided to be given to Servashri Ramswaroop, Shive Narain Mundra, Govind Singh and Asa Ram Sunar. What is contained in this silp is nothing but the comment that what has been recorded at page 35 as resolution No. 85 was not correctly recorded but that slip was not the resolution of the Regional Transport Authority. I fail to understand, if that were the correct position, why should the Chairman have declined to sign the amended draft of the resolution which is at page 38, The amended draft does not bear the signature of the Member Secretary as well. Members might take different opinions regarding a particular decision to be given by the Regional Transport Authority, but it is difficult to conceive that they would differ even on the question as to what was their decision. Rule 78 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1951 lays down that subject to the provisions of the Act and these rules and to the approval of the Government, the State Transport Authority or R.T. A. shall have power to make bye-laws to regulate the conduct of its business and shall likewise have power to amend such bye-laws and the business of such authority shall be conducted accordingly under the direction of the Chairman Unfortunately no bye-laws have been framed as to how the business of the R.T.A. including its decision will be conducted. Anyway, it is for the Transport Authorities to see as to what they should do in the matter, but this rule clearly indicates that the business has to be conducted under the direction of the Chairman. Here the Chairman has recorded the minutes, to start with, that the applications of the respondents were kept pending. This minute was signed by the Member Secretary. At a later stage when the Dy. Inspector General of Police wrote, by a slip, that there were omissions in the resolution and permits were ordered to be granted to four persons, things started moving in the opposite direction. The Chairman did not commit himself to either view whether what he recorded as resolution No. 85 was right or wrong. He left it to the Secretary, who too was by that time changed and was not the same person who participated at the meeting, to deal with the matter in the light of the directions of the other two members of the Regional Transport Authority. This is not understandable. Subsequently two of the members namely, the Superintending Engineer and the former Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority Major Narain Singh signed the slip on which the Deputy Inspector General of Police had recorded the position, according to him, about the taking of the decision to grant the permits. When the matter went to the Chairman for giving a final shape to the decision of the Reg. Transport Authority he declined to sign the amended resolution saying that the resolution had already been written. This leaves no doubt in my mind that the Chairman had not fallen in line with the other members. The present case reveals a sordid state of affairs in the working of the Regional Transport Authority. It appears that the minutes came to be recorded months after the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority that had taken place at the end of October, 1965. Where minutes are recorded after such a long lapse of time, many pitfalls due to the tricks of memory are bound to come in existence. It should not be forgotten by the Transport Authorities that they are acting quasi judicially in the matter of granting permits and they have to follow certain basic norms of judicial procedure though they are not required to work as courts. It should not be forgotten by the Transport Authorities that they are acting quasi judicially in the matter of granting permits and they have to follow certain basic norms of judicial procedure though they are not required to work as courts. They too have not only to do justice, but appear to be doing justice (vide Manaklal vs. Bar Council., Rajasthan). It is unfortunate that in the present case the minutes came to be recorded several months after the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority. This cannot rebound to the credit of anybody. By the time the minutes were recorded things were likely to be forgotten. The minutes run into as many as 73 pages and embrace as many as 160 resolutions. The Reg. Transport Authority may not be able to record the minutes then and there, but then it should do so within a reasonable period while the matter is fresh and had not faded by lapse of time Recording of a detailed resolution embodying the reasons in support of the decisions may be done later on within a reasonable time, but it is necessary that at least the record of decisions be kept in the form of an order sheet incorporating the operative part of the decision. If the persons concerned were not able to agree as to what was their decision then they should have at least exchanged notes by a personal discussion and then recorded the correct resolution. This was not done. The only resolution which bears the signature of the Chairman is available at page 35 and the other proposed revised draft does not bear the signatures of the Chairman or the Member Secretary. Shri Gupta submitted, in the light of the memo of appeal before the Transport Appellate Tribunal filed by the petitioner, that the petitioner had not taken the stand that there was no decision of the Reg. Transport Authority. By the time the appeal was filed on or about 22-4 66 the permits had not been issued to the respondents and they came to be issued much later. The petitioner could not have properly known as to how things had developed in the record of proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority. In the petition the entire record is before the Court and I have reproduced the material part of the proceedings. The proceedings are tell tale and need no comments. The petitioner could not have properly known as to how things had developed in the record of proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority. In the petition the entire record is before the Court and I have reproduced the material part of the proceedings. The proceedings are tell tale and need no comments. To say the least, the matter was dealt with a most unsatisfactory manner not expected of a body who is to deal with a matter quasi judicially. It is to be remembered that on the correctness of the proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority fate of the operators who have to put huge financial stakes in business is involved and, therefore, the record of proceedings or the minutes of the meeting should be above board and there should be no room for doubt about the correct recording of a decision. Unfortunately this is wanting in the present case. 8. Now the decision for fixing the scope is found to have been recorded as resolution No. 115 and it is at page 51. Looking to the course of the proceedings and the way in which minutes had been recorded it is not unreasonable to infer that the decision to fix the limits for permits was taken later. Shri Gupta, however, submitted that looking to the order in which the items were shown in the agenda the resolution for fixing the limit must have been passed earlier to the resolution for granting the permits. It is true the agenda does suggest that, as I have already observed, but there is no guarantee that the decisions were actually taken in the order the items were shown in the agenda, when the minutes point in the opposite direction. Respondents have put in an affidavit that the question of scope was decided first but the affidavit cannot outweigh what has been recorded in the minutes. Normally resolutions were assigned a number and recorded in the order in which they are made. At any rate, it cannot be predicated in the present case that the resolution No. 115 preceded the so called resolution No. 85 which, as has already been discussed, itself was shrouded in mystery as to what it actually represented. One finds [himself like an Alice in wonderland in such a situation and the correct position cannot be ascertained. At any rate, it cannot be predicated in the present case that the resolution No. 115 preceded the so called resolution No. 85 which, as has already been discussed, itself was shrouded in mystery as to what it actually represented. One finds [himself like an Alice in wonderland in such a situation and the correct position cannot be ascertained. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the minutes could not have been recorded after the persons concerned had ceased to be members. Where a Regional Transport Authority has been reconstituted then the ex-members will not be debarred from recording the decisions already taken while they were such members. It is a different matter if there is a doubt about the decision itself namely as to what was the correct decision of the Regional Transport Authority, but so far as the recording of minutes is concerned the ex-members would be competent to record the decision already taken by them while they were members. Learned counsel for the parties had also stressed the point about the petitioners filing the objections. While the petitioner relies on the postal certificate for despatching the objections, learned counsel for the respondents takes the position that no such objections were filed. It was for the Transport Authorities to come to the conclusion on such a question of fact. Accordingly, I am not inclined to deal with the question in the circumstances indicated above, but I leave the question open for the Reg. Transport Authority to deal with it when it considers the matter afresh. As there is a fundamental error involved on account of there being no properly recorded resolution of the Regional Transport Authority for granting the permits or for granting them after first fixing the limit under sec. 47(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act the Regional Transport Authoritys resolution is fit to be quashed. As a corollary the order of the Transport Appellate Tribunal too has to be quashed. The Regional Transport Authority shall deal with the matter afresh according to law after fixing a meeting by a proper agenda. As the matter has been considerably delayed the Regional Transport Authority should decide the applications of respondents Nos. 3 to 6 along with any other applications as may be ripe and pending within a period of three months from today. 9. As the matter has been considerably delayed the Regional Transport Authority should decide the applications of respondents Nos. 3 to 6 along with any other applications as may be ripe and pending within a period of three months from today. 9. In the result I allow the writ petition, set aside the Regional Transport Authoritys resolution No. 85 dated 28/29/30-10 63, as also the appellate order of the Transport Appellate Tribunal dated 11-9-67 (Annexure 10). The respondents shall pay the compensation to the petitioner as per their own undertaking filed before the Deputy Registrar. The Deputy Registrar shall calculate the amount of compensation and shall incorporate it in the decree-sheet. The parties are left to bear their own costs.