Judgment 1. THE appellants Nos. 1 to 15 are the existing loperators of Route No. 17 which runs from Chinsurah to Tarakeswar in he district of Hooghly covering 33 miles and they are plying 15 buses each of them having obtained stage carriage permit from the Regional Transport authority, Hooghly. They have also an association under the name of Tarakeswar-Chinsurah Bus Association. It appears that a notice was published in a local Bengali Weekly inviting applications for 5 additional stage carriage permits to be granted by the Regional transport Authority, Hooghly in Route no. 17 (Chinsurah to Tarakeswar. On the 17th February, 1964 15 appellants in a letter head of the Tarakeswar chinsurah Bus Association wrote a letter under the heading "objection against Notification of R. T. A. inviting application for permit of 5 vehicles in route No. 17". The said letter was signed by the 15 appellants themselves. It was stated in the said letter that route No. 17 was already congested by plying of the 15 buses and that the owners of the buses were already over taxed with enhanced rates of Motor vehicles Tax and other excessive costs of maintenance and that granting of 5 additional permits would seriously be against public interest. It appears that there was also a notification issued by the Regional Transport Authority inviting objections against grant of permits for five additional buses in the said route. The appellants contended in the petition filed before this Court that no notice had been given fixing the date and time for consideration of the representation and or for hearing of the said application and or objections and| or representations filed by the appellants and no notice was given for a public hearing. It appears that on the 8th October, 1964 the Regional Transport authority passed a resolution and considered 95 applications for the sanction and granted 5 applications for additional stage carriage permits for Route no. 17. The persons in whose favour the said sanctions have been granted are the respondents Nos. 2-8 in the present appeal. A copy of the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting of the regional Transport Authority held on the 8th October, 1964 has been annexed with the petition. 17. The persons in whose favour the said sanctions have been granted are the respondents Nos. 2-8 in the present appeal. A copy of the minutes of the proceedings of the meeting of the regional Transport Authority held on the 8th October, 1964 has been annexed with the petition. It appears that 8 members were present including Shri gregory Gomes, I. A. S., Chairman; who was the District Magistrate, Hooghly, apart from Shri R. Malakor, Secretary, R. T. A., Hooghly was present and the Executive Engineer, Hooghly Construction division, P. W. Roads Department was present by special invitation. The Executive Engineer, Hooghly, Construction division, P. W. Roads, Department, was not a member of the Regiotrial transport Authority. Shri S. Satmajdar, Executive Engineer, P. W. D. Hooghly was a member of the Regional transport Authority and was also present. Being aggrieved by the said grant of the additional 5 permits the appellants herein moved this High court under Article 226 of the Constitution and a rule nisi being No. 1363 (W)of 1964 was issued. In the said application the appellants contended that the R.T.A. on 8th of October, 1964 did not consider at all the justification of granting permits for additional buses on the said Route and did not consider the merits of the individual applicants. It was further contended that no opportunity of hearing was given to the appellants and the representation of the appellants were not considered. It was then contended that the resolution dated 8th of October, 1964 was passed with out compliance with the relevant provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and in particular with Sections 47 and 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was also, inter alia, contended that the presence of the Executive Engineer, Hooghly, construction Division, P. W. (Roads), department, and his participation in the meeting held on 8th October, 1964 had vitiated the entire proceedings. After the rule nisi was issued affidavits in opposition were filed on behalf of the respondents. In the affidavit in opposition of the Regional Transport authority, Mr. Gregory Gomes, who was the Chairman of the Regional transport Authority and the District magistrate at the relevant time, stated that the petitioners were the permit-holders of the Route No. 17 who had obtained permits in the year 1957 against 20 vacancies declared by the Regional Transport authority in the newly sanctioned route. Gregory Gomes, who was the Chairman of the Regional transport Authority and the District magistrate at the relevant time, stated that the petitioners were the permit-holders of the Route No. 17 who had obtained permits in the year 1957 against 20 vacancies declared by the Regional Transport authority in the newly sanctioned route. It was further stated that at first 10 stage carriage permits were sanctioned out of the 20 permits sanctioned by the State Government. Then out of the remaining 10 permits 5 more permits were granted with the subsequent further completion of the route upto Tarakeshwar to 5 displaced bus - owners and the remaining five have: been granted by the resolution of the 8 October, 1964 to meet the present public demand. It was further stated that; the association of the appellants did not obtain any recognition from the state Government as required under the provision of Motor Vehicles Act. It; was further stated in the said affidavit: that the representation filed on the 24th february, 1964 was by the Tarakeswar-Chinsurah Bus Association was not a proper representation inasmuch as it was not a recognised association under the Act. It was further stated that there was no representation filed within the time stipulated. It was further, stated that the appellants did not files any valid objection or representation in accordance with the Motor Vehicles act. It was further asserted in the said affidavit that the Regional Transport Authority, hooghly granted 5 permits on the 8th October, 1964 against the existing vacancies lying from the year 1956-57 in accordance with the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed there-under. It was asserted that 95 applications were considered on their individual merits and 5 persons were considered to be suitable. So far as the presence of the executive Engineer, Hooghly Construction Division, P. W. (Roads) Department was concerned, it was asserted that he was asked to be present to satisfy the Regional Transport Authority regarding the conditions of the roads involved as required under Section 47 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, but he did not participate in the proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority in any manner. In paragraph 16 of the said affidavit it was stated as follows:- "I say that 20 buses were sanctioned in the route at the time of its creation. In paragraph 16 of the said affidavit it was stated as follows:- "I say that 20 buses were sanctioned in the route at the time of its creation. 15 permits were earlier issued with the gradual completion of the Road the remaining 5 permits were decided to be issued in response to the public demand. These are not new or additional permits against the sanctioned strength of 20 as stated before. The Regional transport Authority considered the matter in all its aspects. The applications were also considered on their individual merits. The present increase of the number of buses has not in any way exceeded the total original notified quota of 20 "in the affidavit in opposition Memo, dated 17th September, 1956 from the Secretary, State Transport Authority, west Bengal Home Department, to the Secretary Regional transport Authority, Hooghly regarding the opening of new bus routes in the district of Hooghly, has been annexed. It has been stated in the said memo, that with reference to the letter dated 2nd July, 1956 written by the Regional Transport Authority, hooghly, that the Transport Authority, west Bengal has no objection to the opening of the under noted new bus routes in the region and to the issue of stage carriage permits, as noted against each, subject to the conditions mentioned in the said memo. Amongst the names of the routes the first one is the chinsurah G. T. Road-Dhaniakhali-Dasghara-Tarakeswar (via Chinsurah-Dhaniakhali Road. It was further stated that for the present the service will run from Chinsurah to Dhaniakhali, and when the portion of the road between Dhaniakhali and D'asghara has been metalled, the service shall be extended upto Tarakeswar. There were certain other affidavits filed on behalf of other respondents more or less on the similar lines. It was stated in the affidavit in reply in paragraph 3 that the petitioners do not admit that there was any sanction of the Regional transport Authority, Hooghly for 20 stage carriage permits. It was alleged that in any event the alleged sanction even if there be any was made without giving the petitioners any opportunity to file their objections against the proposed sanction and/or without giving them any hearing in the matter. 2. THE matter came up for hearing before D. Bosu, J., and by a judgment delivered on the 6th. It was alleged that in any event the alleged sanction even if there be any was made without giving the petitioners any opportunity to file their objections against the proposed sanction and/or without giving them any hearing in the matter. 2. THE matter came up for hearing before D. Bosu, J., and by a judgment delivered on the 6th. May, 1968 his lordship has been pleased to discharge the rule nisi without any order as to costs. It appears that this matter was heard along with similar other matters under the Motor Vehicles Act by the learned Judge. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of D. Basu, j., passed on the 6th of May, 1968 the appellants herein who were the petitioners before the learned Judge have preferred this appeal. In support of this appeal Mr. Bose, learned advocate for the appellants, urged before us three main points. Firstly, he submitted that the meeting of the Regional Transport Authority held on the 8th October, 1964 was vitiated by the presence of an outsider namely, the Executive Engineer P. W. (Roads) Department, Hooghly. He drew our attention to a Bench decision of this Court in the case of (1) Commissioner of Burdwan Division v. Mrinal kanti Chatterjee and anr. 63 CWN, page 1. Mr. Bose next submitted that the additional permits were granted without compliance with the provisions of Sections 47 and 57 of the Motor vehicles Act and as such the whole resolution granting additional permits was void being illegal, and contrary to statutory requirements. Mr. Bose lastly submitted that the representation and the petition made by his clients were not considered and rejected on a wholly untenable ground. He urged that though the letter was written in the letter-head of the Tarakeshwar chinsurah Bus Association, all the 15 appellants themselves had signed the representation and even though the association was not a recognised association their representations and petitions should have been considered. He submitted that in not considering the said representation and the petition filed by his clients on the ground that the Tarakeswar Chinsurah bus Association was not a recognised association the Regional Transport Authority acted contrary to the principles of natural justice. 3. WE are, however unable to accept Mr. Bose's first contention. In the case of (1) Commissioner of Burdwan division v. Mrinal Kanti Chatterjee and anr. 3. WE are, however unable to accept Mr. Bose's first contention. In the case of (1) Commissioner of Burdwan division v. Mrinal Kanti Chatterjee and anr. (supra) Chakravarti, C. J. found that at a particular sitting of the Regional transport Authority at which the applications for a stage carriage permits were considered, certain outsiders who were not members of the body, were present, and took part in the deliberations. The learned Chief Justice on examination of the facts before him came to the conclusion that the outsiders were not mere visitors but they participated in the deliberations as members and such participation of outsiders vitiated the proceedings of the Regional transport Authority while it was discharging certain quasi-judicial functions in that case. It has not been established in the instant case that the Executive Engineer P. W. (Roads) Department actually participated in the proceedings, in the sense that he influenced its decision. If he was merely present to help the members with certain technical information not connected with the merits of the question whether sanction should be granted or not, we are of the opinion that his mere presence in the meeting without participation would not vitiate the proceedings of the Regional Transport Authority held on the 8th October, 1964. On this aspect of the matter we are in agreement with the learned trial Judge. The first contention of Mr. Bose must therefore, be rejected. 4. THE second and third contentions of Mr. Bose can conveniently be dealt with together and require a little examination. Mr. Bose's main point is that before the grant of any permit the Regional Transport Authority must consider the various matters enumerated under Section 47 of the motor Vehicles Act. Sec. 47 of the motor Vehicles Act is in the following terms : "47. Bose can conveniently be dealt with together and require a little examination. Mr. Bose's main point is that before the grant of any permit the Regional Transport Authority must consider the various matters enumerated under Section 47 of the motor Vehicles Act. Sec. 47 of the motor Vehicles Act is in the following terms : "47. (1) A Regional Transport Authority shall, in considering an application for a stage carriage permit, have regard to the following matters, namely, (a) the interests of the public generally; (b) the advantages to the public of the service to be provided, including the saving of time likely to be effected thereby and any convenience arising from journeys not being broken; (c) the adequacy of other passenger transport services operating or likely to operate in the near future, whether by road or other means, between the places to be served; (d) the benefit to any particular locality or localities likely to be afforded by the service; (e) the operation by the applicant of other transport services, including those in respect of which applications from him for permits are pending; (f) the condition of the roads included in the proposed route or area; and shall also take into consideration any representations made by persons already providing passenger transport facilities by any means along or near the proposed route or area, or by any association representing persons interested in the provision of road transport facilities recognized in this behalf by the State government, or by local authority or police authority within whose jurisdiction any part of the proposed route or area lies; provided that other conditions being equal, an application for a stage carriage permit from a co-operative society registered or deemed to have been registered under any enactment in force for the time being shall, as far as may be, be given preference over application from individual owners. (2) A Regional Transport Authority shall refuse to grant a stage carriage permit if it appears from any time-table furnished that the provisions of this Act relating to the speed at which vehicles may be driven are likely to be contravened: provided that before such refusal an opportunity shall be given to the applicant to amend the time-table so as to conform to the said provisions. (3) A Regional Transport Authority may, having regard to the matters mentioned in sub-section (1), limit the number of stage carriages generally or of any specified type for which stage carriage permits may be granted in the region or in any specified area or on any specified route within the region". It has to be observed further that sub-section 3 of Section 47 of the motor Vehicles Act was incorporated by the amending act of 1956 which was passed by the Parliament on the 30th December and which came into force on 26th February 1957. The first question that requires consideration in this matter, is whether in fact there has been 'compliance with Section 47 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1939. Mr. Banerjee learned advocate for the Regional Transport Authority, contended that this point was not taken before the learned trial Judge. We are, however unable to accept this objection of Mr. Banerjee. As mentioned hereinbefore in the petition it has been specifically mentioned that there has been non-compliance with Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles act. Indeed we find that this point was specifically urged before the learned Judge and he has dealt with this point. In the judgment it has been inter alia stated as follows : "it is however, contended on behalf of the petitioners that the R. T. A. was bound to consider such objection under the general provisions of Section 47. Assuming that this is a relevant consideration, in the instant case this factor, had indeed been considered long before the invitation for the 5 additional permits was issued. The fixation of the quota of permits to be granted on any route takes place under sub-section (3) of section 47 which was inserted into the statute in 1956. It appears from Annexure 'a' to the counter-affidavit of the R. T. A. (Para 3) that as early as 1957, the R. T. A. with the concurrence of the S. T. A. decided to sanction 20 permits for the disputed route and that of the 20 vacancies, only 10 were instantly granted since the route was not yet completed. Para 3 of the counter-affidavit of the other respondents discloses that the petitioners themselves got their permits by applying against those immediate vacancies out of the sanctioned strength of 20. Para 3 of the counter-affidavit of the other respondents discloses that the petitioners themselves got their permits by applying against those immediate vacancies out of the sanctioned strength of 20. This is corroborated by the notice dated 2nd September, 1957 published in the Chinsurah bartabaha which has been produced before me. At a subsequent stage, 5 more permits were granted to petitioners nos. 3-7 and it is for the remaining 15 of the 20 sanctioned vacancies that the advertisement was issued on the present occasion and that is objected to by the petitioner. " 5. THEREFORE it appears to us that the question of non-compliance of section 47 was specifically taken in the petition and urged in the argument before the learned trial Judge. The question is therefore, whether there has been compliance with Section 47 and whether the objections of the petitioners were validly rejected. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate for the respondent Regional Transport Authority and following him Mr. Roy Choudhury, learned Advocate for, the other respondents, contended that even if the question of the compliance with Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act can be gone into that point was not available to the appellants inasmuch as they had themselves got their permits against the sanctioned quota under Section 47 and furthermore, the quota according to Mr. Banerjee had already been fixed under Sec. 47 (3) of the Motor Vehicles act. In that context Mr. Banerjee argued that the objection that can be filed on behalf of the petitioners can only be under Section 57 not against granting of the 5 additional permits but against suitability of the candidates to whom the permits were proposed to be granted. Mr. Banerjee urged that inasmuch as the objections filed by the appellants were not directed against suitability or the desirability of the persons who had applied for grant of 5 additional permits, the regional Transport Authority was quite competent to reject the said objection apart from the question whether it was made by an association not recognized under the Act. Mr. Banerjee therefore, submitted that there was no valid objection filed under section 57 which could have been considered by the Regional Transport authority and therefore in not considering the petition or the representation made on behalf of the appellants, there has been no violation of any principle of natural justice. Mr. Mr. Banerjee therefore, submitted that there was no valid objection filed under section 57 which could have been considered by the Regional Transport authority and therefore in not considering the petition or the representation made on behalf of the appellants, there has been no violation of any principle of natural justice. Mr. Banerjee drew our attention to paragraph 9 of the petition where it has been stated that the petitioners had submitted the objections "through the Association." therefore Mr. Banerjee submitted that: it was apparent that though the objections were signed individually by the: appellants, it was the association "through" whom they filed the objection. For the purpose of showing that section 47 has been complied with and there has already been a sanction previously fixing 20 permits, Mr. Banerjee drew our attention to Annexure "a" to the affidavit affirmed on the 7th of June, 1965. That was as mentioned hereinbefore the memo, dated 17th of September, 1958 from the Secretary State Transport Authority, West Bengal to the Secretary, Regional Transport authority, Hooghly, sating that the said Transport Authority had no objection to the proposal of the Regional Transport Authority of sanctioning 20 buses. Mr. Banerjee submitted that this indicated that under Section 47 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, number of permits had been fixed and this indicated that all the steps necessary for the opening of the new routes had been complied with and all the points required to be considered under Section 47 had been considered. We have quoted the above provisions of Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the case of (2) Abdul Mateen v. Ram Kailash Pandey and others, AIR 1963 SC page 64 the Supreme Court considered, the provisions of Sections 47 and 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act. We have quoted the above provisions of Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the case of (2) Abdul Mateen v. Ram Kailash Pandey and others, AIR 1963 SC page 64 the Supreme Court considered, the provisions of Sections 47 and 57 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Supreme court observed that where a limit has been fixed under Section 47 (3) by the regional Transport Authority and thereafter the said authority proceeds to consider the applications for permits under Section 48 read with Section 57, the Regional Transport Authority must confine the number of permits issued by it to those limits and on an appeal under Section 64 or revision under Section 64-A as inserted by the Bihar Act by an aggrieved person, the appellate Authority or the Revisional authority must equally be confined to the issue of permits within the limits fixed under Section 47 (3), and it is not open to any of them to issue permits beyond the limits fixed under that section. The Supreme: court further observed that though it is true that the Regional Transport Authority can revise the general order passed by it under Section 47 (3), that revision is a separate power in the authority and not a power arising when it is dealing with an individual permit, therefore, when an appeal is taken from an order under Section 48 and a revision is taken by an aggrieved person under Section 64a, the power of: the Appellate Authority as well as of: the revisional authority is as much subject to Section 47 (3) as the power of the Regional Transport Authority under Section 48. The Supreme Court further considered in that case the question whether where an advertisement has been issued by the Regional Trans-port authority calling for application for vacancies it must be presumed or it must be held that the Regional Trans-port authority has fixed the number as; required by Section 47 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. At page 69 of the report the Supreme Court observed "it maybe conceded that it may not be generally possible to conclude from the number of vacancies shown in an advertisement of this kind that that is the number fixed under Section 47 (3) by the; regional Transport Authority. At page 69 of the report the Supreme Court observed "it maybe conceded that it may not be generally possible to conclude from the number of vacancies shown in an advertisement of this kind that that is the number fixed under Section 47 (3) by the; regional Transport Authority. There is, however in our opinion one exception to this general rule, and that is when a new route is being advertised for the first time. It is not disputed that in this case a new route was being; advertised for the first time and the advertisement said that there were two vacancies for which applications were; invited. In the case of a new route it: is clear that the Regional Transport, authority must have come to some: conclusion as to the number of stage carriages which were to be permitted to operate on that route and the advertisement would only be issued on behalf of the Regional Transport Authority calling for applications for the number so fixed. Therefore when it is a case of a new route which is being opened for the first time and an advertisement is issued calling for application for such a new route specifying the number of vacancies for it, we think, it is reasonable to infer that when the number of vacancies was specified that shows the limit which must have been decided upon by the Regional Transport Authority under Section 47 (3); otherwise, it is impossible to understand in the case of a new route why the advertisement was only for two vacancies and not (say) for four or six. The very fact that in the case of a new route opened for the first time, the advertisement mentions two vacancies shows that the regional Transport Authority must have decided before issuing the advertisement that on that route the number of stage carriages will be limited to two under Section 47 (3. This is also the inference which the High Court has drawn in this connection, though it has not specifically mentioned the fact that this was a case of a new route opened for the first time. This is also the inference which the High Court has drawn in this connection, though it has not specifically mentioned the fact that this was a case of a new route opened for the first time. As we have said above, such an inference from the advertisement would be justified in the case of a new route which is opened for the first time "it has to be emphasised in the instant case before us that it is not a case of new route but there are existing operators operating certain carriages in the said route. Therefore the presumption that might have arisen in the case of advertisement issued by the Regional Transport authority for specific number of vacancies in the case of a new route will not arise in this case. The point was further considered by the Supreme Court in the case of (3) R. Obliswami Naidu v. Additional State Transport Appellate tribunal, Madras and others AIR 1969, SC page 1130. The Supreme Court held in that case that in view of Sections 47 and 57 of the Motor Vehicles act before granting a stage carriage permit two independent steps have to be taken. Firstly, there should be a determination by the R. T. A. under section 47 (3), of the number of stage carriages for which stage carriage permits may be granted in that route. Thereafter applications for stage carriage permits in that route should be entertained. The Supreme Court further came to the conclusion that where the Regional Transport Authority determines the number of stage carriages required on the route at the time of entertaining application for stage carriage permit the procedure is not in accordance with law. At page 1131 of the Report the Supreme Court observed "sub-Section (3) of Section 47 of the act requires the Regional Transport authority to limit the number of stage carriage permits that may be granted in a route having regard to the matters mentioned in sub-section (1) of that section. The question for determination is whether the determination as to the number of stage carriages required on a route should be done at a stage anterior to that of entertaining applications for stage carriage permits or that it could be done at the time it considers applications made by operators for stage carriage permits in that route". The question for determination is whether the determination as to the number of stage carriages required on a route should be done at a stage anterior to that of entertaining applications for stage carriage permits or that it could be done at the time it considers applications made by operators for stage carriage permits in that route". The language of Section 47 (1) is, as we have noted before, "a Regional transport Authority shall, in considering an application for a stage carriage permit, have regard to the following matters. . . . . . . . " and then several matters have been mentioned. Sub-section (3) of that section requires that a regional Transport Authority must fix the limit having regard to the matters mentioned under sub-section (1) of section 47. Therefore, a strict adherence to the language of sub-section (1)and sub-section (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act would seem to indicate that it is mandatory at the time of the consideration of the application for stage carriage permits each time by the Regional Transport Authority, to consider the various factors contemplated under sub-section (1) of Section 47 of the act and further that the fixation of the numbers as required in sub-section (3) must be with regard to the matters referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 47. In view however of the scheme of Section 47 the Supreme court has held that the fixation of the numbers as contemplated under subsection (3) of Section 47 must be done not at the time when consideration of the application for stage carriage permit is made but at a stage anterior thereto. The Supreme Court further observed in that case that Section 57 (3)merely permits representations to be made in respect of the applications published. Such (representations cannot take the form of competing applications. The Court further held that the word "representations" in Section 57 (3) does not include applications for the route. Our attention was also drawn to the decision in the case of (4) Sri Raja Rajeswari Bus Service, vridhachalam v. Regional Transport authority, South Arcot Cuddalore and mother A. I. R. 1969 Mad. Page 458. The Court further held that the word "representations" in Section 57 (3) does not include applications for the route. Our attention was also drawn to the decision in the case of (4) Sri Raja Rajeswari Bus Service, vridhachalam v. Regional Transport authority, South Arcot Cuddalore and mother A. I. R. 1969 Mad. Page 458. There the Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that Section 47 envisages two stages of inquiry (i) fixation of number of permits under Section 47 (3) and (ii) consideration thereafter of the applications for the grant of permit and representations, if any, by persons mentioned in Section 57 (3). While Section 57 (3) provides for making application for the grant of perra it and inviting of representations on receipt of such applications, the proviso to that sub-section authorises the Regional Transport Authority to reject evan summarily the applications without following the procedure laid down in the sub-section,, if the grant of permit in accordance with the applications would go beyond the limits fixed under sub-section (3) of Section 47. The court further held that the contortion that the petitioner could not, in proceedings under section 57 (3) raise objection as to want of a prior determination under Section 47 (3), is devoid of merits. It was open to him to raise that point before the Regional Transport Authority as an objector, being an operator on the route. 6. IT appears to us that even though, as has been held by the Supreme Court that the fixation of the number of permits as contemplated under Section 47 (3) of the Motor Vehicles act, must be done at a stage anterior to the stage of consideration of actual application for grant of stage carriage permit, in case of grant of all new permits at some stage or other there must be fixation of the number under Section 47 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The question is whether that done in this case ? Mr. Banerjee contended that it was done. He submitted that the advertisement issued by the Regional Transport authority inviting applications for 5 permits indicated that aft a prior stage the numbers must have been fixed under Section 47 (3) of the motor Vehicles Act. This is, as mentioned hereinbefore, not a new route. Mr. Banerjee contended that it was done. He submitted that the advertisement issued by the Regional Transport authority inviting applications for 5 permits indicated that aft a prior stage the numbers must have been fixed under Section 47 (3) of the motor Vehicles Act. This is, as mentioned hereinbefore, not a new route. Therefore the presumption that could arise as indicated in the decision of Supreme Court in the case of (2) Abdul mateen v. Ram Kailash Pandey and ors. (supra) would not arise in this case. We are. therefore, of the opinion that from the advertisement issued it can not be presumed that the Regional transport Authority has fixed the number at 20 under Section 47 (3) of the motor Vehicles Act having regard to the matters mentioned under Section 47 (1) of the said Act. Mr. Banerjee then contended that the Memo, dated 17th of September, 1956 from the Secretary, State Transport Authority, West Bengal, Home Department, Calcutta to the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Hooghly, indicated that this matter must have been fixed by the regional Transport Authority under section 47 (3) of the Motor Vehicles act. We are unable to agree. As mentioned hereinbefore sub-section (3) of section 47 was introduced by the amendment Act of 1956 which came into effect from 26th February, 1957. Therefore, prior to 26th February, 1957 it is unlikely that the Regional Transport authority had acted in compliance with the section which had not become operative. It has to be remembered that the Memo, dated 17th of September, 1956 was a reply to the letter dated 2nd of July 1956 written by the secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Hooghly. It further appears that under Section 43 of the Motor Vehicles act the State Government has authority to issue directions to the Regional transport Authorities. Whether this memo, dated 17th of September, 1s56 was written under the said authority or not is not clear nor is it necessary for us to determine. It further does not appear to us that from Memo, dated 17th of September, 1956 it can be presumed that having regard to the matters in sub-section (1) of Section 47 the Regional Transport Authority has fixed the number as required by sub-section (3) of Section 47. Mr. It further does not appear to us that from Memo, dated 17th of September, 1956 it can be presumed that having regard to the matters in sub-section (1) of Section 47 the Regional Transport Authority has fixed the number as required by sub-section (3) of Section 47. Mr. Banerjee then contended that when advertisement was issued by the Regional transport Authority, Hooghly the presumption should be made in favour of the legality of all official acts and it must be held that all steps necessary prior thereto have been duly complied with. In a case however where the issue is specifically raised that there has been non-compliance with Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, we are of the opinion that presumption can not be made. Mr. Banerjee then contended that that memo, dated 17th of February, 1956 had been written prior to coming into operation of sub-section (3) of Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The permits in favour of the appellants were all granted subsequent to the 16th February, 1957 that is to say after coming into operation of the sub-section (3) of Section 47 of the motor Vehicles Act. Mr. Banerjee contended that unless there has been compliance with section 47 (3) of the motor Vehicles Act it would not have been possible for the appellants to operate their stage carriages. The propriety of permits in favour of appellants is not an issue in this case. The question that was raised in this application was whether the five additional permits granted in favour of the respondents by the Regional Transport authority was properly granted or not. In considering that it is relevant only to consider whether these permits have been granted in accordance with law. It has further to, be borne in mind that the point that there has been non-compliance with the provisions of Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act was raised in the petition but in the affidavits in opposition none of the respondent has categorically stated as to whether or not sub-section (3) of Section 47 has been complied with. No date of any resolution was mentioned in the affidavit. Mr. Banerjee also was unable to draw our attention to any affidavit from where it would appear that the resolution as required under subsection (3) of Section 47 was passed. No date of any resolution was mentioned in the affidavit. Mr. Banerjee also was unable to draw our attention to any affidavit from where it would appear that the resolution as required under subsection (3) of Section 47 was passed. In view of the fact that five permits were issued after coming into operation of sub-section (3) of Section 47, there must be at some stage a resolution or a fixation as contemplated under Section 47 (3) having regard to the matters mentioned under Section 47 (1)of the Motor Vehicles Act. Our attention has not been drawn to any such resolution. There are two other aspects of the matter which indicate that there has been non-compliance with section 47 (3) of the Motor Vehicles act. It is true, as Supreme Court observed that the fixation of the numbers as required under sub-section (3) of section 47 must be done not at the time when consideration of the application for stage carriage permit is made but at a stage anterior thereto, but all the factors mentioned in sub-section (1)of Section 47 of the Act are fluctuating factors. It is unlikely that a determination as required under sub-section (3)of Section 47 would take place in 1957 and in pursuance of that determination made, the permits would be granted seven years afterwards in October 1964. The second aspect of this matter is the presence of the Executive Engineer, hooghly Construction Division, P. W. (Roads) Department. We have held that his presence has not vitiated the proceedings. But it is significant to note as to why he was present. In the affidavit of Sree Gregory Gomes it has been stated that he was present so as to satisfy the Regional Transport Authority regarding the conditions of the roads involved as required under Section 47 (f) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Clause (f) of Section 47 (1) deals with the condition of the roads included in the proposed route or area. If having regard to the matters included in clause (f) mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act a number had been fixed by the Regional Transport authority under Section (3) of Section 47, it was unlikely that the Executive Engineer Hooghly construction Division, P. W. (Roads) Department would be present for that: purpose again while the Regional Transport Authority was considering the merits of the individual applications. Having regard to all the factors mentioned hereinbefore, we are of the opinion that it has not been established that there has been a fixation of numbers as required by Sub-section (3) of section 47 including the numbers in respect of which the applications for the new permits had been asked for. In view of the fact that there has been non-compliance with the statutory requirement of Section 47, we are therefore of the opinion that the issue of advertisement by the Regional Transport authority for five additional permits was irregular and unlawful. The next point that requires consideration is, whether the Regional transport Authority was justified it not considering the objections filed an. behalf of the appellants. The learned trial Judge has held that the objection under Section 57 (3) can only be about the suitability of the new applicants. The said objection was not directed against that point. Therefore, according to the learned trial Judge, the regional Transport Authority was justified in not considering the said objection. As mentioned hereinbefore it was further held that under Section 57 there can not be any objection as to the granting of a new permit as such but that was precisely the objection that was raised by the appellants. It is true that in a case where Section 47 had been complied with, under Section 57 (3) objection can be filed only with regard to the suitability of the candidates for the new permits, but where section 47 (3) has not been complied with, an existing operator can raise an objection in the petition filed pursuant to the notice issued inviting applications for new permits, pointing out the said fact to the Regional Transport authority. Reliance may be made on the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of (4) Sri Raja Rajeswari bus Service, Vridhachalam v. Regional transport Authority South Arcot Cuddalore, and another (supra. Furthermore it appears to us that the Regional transport Authority in its resolution did not pass any order rejecting objection on the ground that it was not maintainable under Section 57 or on the other ground. In the affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the Regional transport Authority it has been stated that the said objection was not considered because the objection was filed by an association not recognized as required under the Act by the Regional transport Authority. In the affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the Regional transport Authority it has been stated that the said objection was not considered because the objection was filed by an association not recognized as required under the Act by the Regional transport Authority. But as mentioned hereinbefore the objection was also signed by the individual bus-operators. It is true that in the petition it has been stated that the said objection was filed "through" the association. That was subsequent to the filing of the objection and can not alter the nature of the objections. We are therefore, of the opinion that the grounds upon which in the affidavit in opposition the Regional transport Authority has sought to support non-consideration of the objection filed on behalf of the appellant is not tenable. It was further pointed out way Mr. Roy Choudhury, learned advocate for the other respondents that the objection was not in time and form as required under Sect: on 57. Again the regional Transport Authority has not stated anywhere that it had rejected the objection of the appellants on that ground. Furthermore, in view of the fact as we have found that there has teen non-compliance with Section 47 it can not be said that the objection was filed under Section 57 as without compliance with Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, advertisement was issued and the existing bus operators were entitled to object to the granting of new permits and to have the objections determined on merit. Not having done that, in our opinion the Regional Transport Authority acted in violation of the principles of natural justice. 7. WE are, therefore of the opinion that the resolution of the Regional transport Authority dated 8th of October, 1964 and granting of 5 additional bus permits on the said route was illegal and contrary to the provisions of law. For the reasons mentioned hereinbefore, we are unable to agree with the learned trial Judge. Therefore this appeal is allowed. The judgment and the order of D. Basu, J. passed on the 6th of May, 1968 is hereby set aside; the rule nisi is made absolute. The resolution passed by the Regional Transport Authority on 8th October, 1964 is hereby quashed and set aside. The Regional Transport Authority, Hooghly is restrained from giving effect to the said resolution of 8th Oct., 1964. The resolution passed by the Regional Transport Authority on 8th October, 1964 is hereby quashed and set aside. The Regional Transport Authority, Hooghly is restrained from giving effect to the said resolution of 8th Oct., 1964. This order however will not prevent the Regionaj transport Authority from granting 5 additional permits in accordance with law after due compliance with the statutory provisions. There will be no order as to costs.