GOSWAMI, C. J.: This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order tjassed by the State Transport Authority in its meeting held on 30th and 31st May. 1969 allowing a revision application against the order of the Regional Transport Authority Dhubri, passed in its meeting held on 19th and 24th September. 1968, grant­ing twelve periodic contract carriage per­mits for a period of three years and two such temporary permits. The petitioner was granted one of the periodic permits. 2. The State Transport Authority entertained the revision application under Section 64-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. hereinafter called 'the Act', on the appli­cation of the Secretary. Dhubri Hat-Bazar Bus Association (Respondent No. 4). who withdrew from the contest here. 3. The facts of the case are as fol­lows: The Regional Transport Authority invited applications for five casual con­tract carriage (Hat-Bazar Busl permits for certain specified centres by a notifi­cation dated 22nd February, 1968 publi­shed in the Assam Gazette of March. 13. 1968. It was mentioned in the advertise­ment that the Regional Transport Autho­rity reserved the right to increase or decrease the number of permits accord­ing to demand. There were more than 250 applicants for these permits. The Au­thority considered the matter and decid­ed as follows: "At this stage the members of their own information and local knowledge and in view of the representations made vide Resolution No. XXIV of the last R. T. A. meeting held on 27th and 28th October, 67 and 19th February 1968 felt the necessity of increasing the number of contract carriage permits for immediate disposal from among the present appli­cants numbering more than 250. The Board after due deliberation and careful consideration decided to increase 8 (eight) contract carriage permits as shown be­low against each centre for immediate consideration from among the present ap­plicants". It appears that in the earlier resolutions of the Authority referred to in the above order they had already decided to increas five contract carriage permits which they had to advertise. Thus, with the above order, the number of permits came to be thirteen, which have been allotted by the Regional Transport Authority to thirteen applicants including this peti­tioner. The State Transport Authority in revision, while setting aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority, observ­ed as follows: "The R. T. A. advertised for 5 perio­dic contract carriage permits only. Thus, with the above order, the number of permits came to be thirteen, which have been allotted by the Regional Transport Authority to thirteen applicants including this peti­tioner. The State Transport Authority in revision, while setting aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority, observ­ed as follows: "The R. T. A. advertised for 5 perio­dic contract carriage permits only. The granting of that number of permits or a few more would have been reasonably within the R. T. A's competence. But it cannot be said that they had not acted adversely to the interests of the existing operators by raising the number to 12 which is more than double the number advertised. To do this without giving an opportunity to the existing operators had been improper and the granting of two temporary permits against permanent needs had further added to this impro­priety." We are not concerned with the second part of the order regarding the decison to increase the number to 70 at present. Finally, it held: "Therefore action of the R. T. A. in increasing the number without following the procedure provided in Section 50 of the M. V. Act is improper, illegal and without jurisdiction." 4. Sections 49. 50 and 51 of the Act deal with application for contract carriage permit, procedure of the Regi­onal Transport Authority in considering such application, and grant of contract carriage permits respectively- Under Section 57(1). an application for a contract carriage permit or a private carrier's per­mit may be made at any time. Under sub­section (61 of Section 57, when any repre­sentation has been made by the persons or authorities referred to in Section 50 to the effect that the number of contract carriages for which permits have already been granted in any region or any area within a region is sufficient for or in excess of the needs of the region or of such area, whether such representation is made in connection with a particular ap­plication for the grant of a contract car­riage permit or otherwise, the Regional Transport Authority may take any such steps as it considers appropriate for the hearing of the representation in the pre­sence of any persons likely to be affected thereby. The above are the material provisions' of the Act which have got to be considered along with Rules 65 and 67 of the Assam Motor Vehicle Rules. 1940 (hereinafter called 'the Rules'). 5. The above are the material provisions' of the Act which have got to be considered along with Rules 65 and 67 of the Assam Motor Vehicle Rules. 1940 (hereinafter called 'the Rules'). 5. Under Rule 65 (a). omitting what is not necessary for our purpose, upon receipt of an application for a con­tract carriage permit, the Regional Trans­port Authority shall, if the application is in order, with all reasonable despatch, circulate particulars thereof to members of the authority together with an intima­tion as to whether the matter is to be decided at a meeting of the authority or upon procedure by circulation. In the latter case, he shall intimate the date by which the opinions of the members have to be received. Under sub-rule (b). in deciding whether an application for a contract carriage permit is to be con­sidered at a meeting of the authority, or upon procedure by circulation, the Re­gional Transport Authority shall without prejudice to the proper examination of the application and any enauiries neces­sary in connection therewith, have regard to the desirability of avoiding delay in the issue of such permits and shall so arrange its business that such permits shall normally be granted or refused within one month of the receipt of the ap­plication. Under Rule 67. when con­sidering an application for any permit if the applicant desires to be heard, the hearing has to be given. Under sub-rule (d) of Rule 67. any person or authority who has made a representation under the provisions of Section 50 of the Act may appear before the Transport Autho­rity upon the date appointed for hearing the representation either in person or by a representative authorised by him or by it, as the case may be. in writing in this behalf: provided that nothing in this sub-rule shall be deemed to require the Trans­port Authority to give a hearing to any representation made under the provisions of Section 50 read with sub-section (6) of Section 57 of the Act. if the authority is satisfied that the representation is frivol­ous or vexatious or relates to a matter upon which the authority recorded a de­cision after giving the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard. 6. From an examination of the above provisions, it is clear that an appli­cation for contract carriage permit may be made at any time. if the authority is satisfied that the representation is frivol­ous or vexatious or relates to a matter upon which the authority recorded a de­cision after giving the parties concerned an opportunity of being heard. 6. From an examination of the above provisions, it is clear that an appli­cation for contract carriage permit may be made at any time. There is no proce­dure for publication of the application-There is even direction in the law to dis­pose of the application ordinarily within one month. • In this case, however, the Authority made it clear under the adver­tisement that five or more permits would be granted. There was. therefore, already a contemplation of the authority commu­nicated to the public or other authorities that permits of this type might be increas­ed. Indeed, this advertisement was in pursuance of an earlier decision to in­crease the quota by five more permits. That decision is not being Questioned. The objection of the State Transport Authority is only to the number of permits being in­creased to thirteen instead of. say seven or eight. This is not. therefore, a case where the decision to increase the permits is improper or illegal, but only that thir­teen permits have been granted as against a lesser number advertised. The reason given by the State Transport Authority in coming to the conclusion that the order of the Regional Transport Authority is improper or illegal is that the procedure under Section 50 of the Act has not been complied with. We do not. however, find any procedure laid down under Sec. 50. which has been disregarded by the Re­gional Transport Authority. Under Sec­tion 50. the Regional Transport Authority shall have regard to the extent to which additional contract carriages may be ne­cessary or desirable in the public interest and is under obligation to take into con­sideration any representations which may then be made or which may previously have been made by the contract carriage permit-holders or by any local or police authority. These representations under Section 50 have to be confined to the grounds that the permits which are already there are sufficient for or in ex­cess of the needs of the area in Question. Although the State Transport Authority is not referring to Section 57(6). These representations under Section 50 have to be confined to the grounds that the permits which are already there are sufficient for or in ex­cess of the needs of the area in Question. Although the State Transport Authority is not referring to Section 57(6). we have taken note of that provision also in con­sidering if it is possible to justify the order of the State Transport Authority regarding violation of the procedure by the Regional Transport Authority. Under this sub-section, the Regional Transport Authority is required to give a hearing to the persons or authorities making the representations under Section 50. Since in this case it is not shown to us that there were any representations made under Sec­tion 50 at any time either before or after the advertisement, there was no occasion for violating the procedure laid down under Section 57(6). From a perusal of the order of the Regional Transport Autho­rity, it is clear that they have increased the number of permits to thirteen having regard to the extent to which additional contract carriages may be necessary or desirable in the public interest. Since there were 250 applicants, the Regional Transport Authority was well within its jurisdiction in selecting a limited number of permit-holders, namely thirteen in this case, out of them after1 deciding to increase the quota as has already been in­dicated in the advertisement. Since, under Section 49 an application has to give necessary particulars, there was no difficulty for selecting the suitable candi­dates. The suitability of the candidates who were selected is not questioned be­fore us, nor at time in any earlier pro­ceeding. We have also noticed that al­though the Regional Transport Authority decided on the same date to increase the number of permits from 25 to 70. it did not choose to select such a big number without a fresh advertisement. This ap­pears to be a very reasonable course which has been adopted by the Regional Trans­port Authority, since after a fresh adver­tisement, persons or authorities mention­ed under Section 50 will have an opportu­nity to show to the Regional Transport Authority whether the increase was "justi­fied or not. • 7. Under Section 64-A of the Act. the State Transport Authority can set aside an order of the Regional Transport Authority if the same is improper or ille­gal. It is true that the State Transport Au­thority has described the order to be ille­gal and arbitrary. • 7. Under Section 64-A of the Act. the State Transport Authority can set aside an order of the Regional Transport Authority if the same is improper or ille­gal. It is true that the State Transport Au­thority has described the order to be ille­gal and arbitrary. But the reasons given by the State Transport Authority for answering the requirements of Sec­tion 64-A to invest them with jurisdiction to set aside the order are clearly lacking. as we have shown above. The order of the State Transport Authority is. there­fore, without jurisdiction and. at any rate, there is a manifest error of law ap­parent on the face of the record as the Regional Transport Authority has not vio­lated any procedure laid down under Sec­tion 50, nor under any other provisions. 8. In the result, the application is allowed. The order of the State Trans­port Authority is quashed. The order of the Regional Transport Authority is res­tored. We will, however, make no order as to costs. M.C.Pathak J. : 9. I Agree. Application Allowed.