Judgement GOSWAMI, C. J.:- This application under Art.226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order of the State Transport Appellate Authority setting aside the earlier order of the Regional Transport Authority, Nowgong refusing to grant a contract carriage permit to the 4th Respondent. 2. The 4th Respondent made an application for grant of a contract carriage permit under Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act to the Regional Transport Authority. That authority refused to grant the permit holding that it was not good as a matter of policy to grant temporary permit from time to time on an ad hoc basis. Earlier, however, for the same route along with other routes, the question of increasing contract carriage permits was considered and the Regional Transport Authority had decided to increase the permits. Representation was submitted before the Regional Transport Authority by the existing contract carriage permit holders against the increase of permits in the Lanka route with which we are concerned in the present case. The petitioner was one of the existing permit holders and was dissatisfied with the order of the Regional Transport Authority and went in revision under Section 64-A of the Act to the State Transport Authority. That authority allowed the revision petition of the petitioner on 30/31-5-1969. The 4th Respondent had preferred an appeal against rejection of his application for contract carriage permit to the State Transport Appellate Authority, which came up for disposal on 6/7-6-1969. The appellate authority allowed his appeal having taken into consideration the needs of the locality. There was an additional ground given by the appellate authority to which serious objection is taken by Mr. Goswami that it had referred to the fact of there being existing vacancies on the route. Mr. Goswami strenuously contends that this would go to show that the appellate body took no note of the order of the State Transport Authority which had set aside the order of the Regional Transport Authority to increase the permits, only about a week back, namely on 30/31-5-1969. The only section to which our attention has been drawn, relevant for considering an application for particular contract carriage permit is Section 50 read with Section 57(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Under Section 57(1), application for this type of permit can be made at any stage. Under Section 50 a procedure is provided for hearing such an application. The only section to which our attention has been drawn, relevant for considering an application for particular contract carriage permit is Section 50 read with Section 57(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Under Section 57(1), application for this type of permit can be made at any stage. Under Section 50 a procedure is provided for hearing such an application. That section is worth quoting: "50:- A Regional Transport Authority shall, in considering an application for a contract carriage permit, have regard to the extent to which additional contract carriages may be necessary or desirable in the public interest; and shall also take into consideration any representations which may then be made or which may previously have been made by persons already holding contract carriage permits in the region or by any local authority or police authority in the region to the effect that the number of contract carriages for which permits have already been granted is sufficient for or in excess of the needs of the region or any area within the region". As stated earlier, Regional Transport Authority had on 25-11-1968 decided that contract carriage permits should be increased. On the same date, however, the Regional Transport Authority refused to grant the application for permit of the 4th Respondent. In an application under Section 50 all that is required to be considered by the Regional Transport Authority as the primary authority is "the extent to which additional contract carriages may be necessary or desirable in the public interest". There is another requirement in considering such an application, for which we are told that there is no requirement under the law for earlier publication of the same in the Gazette as in the case of stage carriage permit, that has to be kept in mind. The authority has to take into consideration any representation which may then be made or which may previously have been made either in favour of increase or in favour of maintaining the status quo of the number of permits. The authority has to take into consideration any representation which may then be made or which may previously have been made either in favour of increase or in favour of maintaining the status quo of the number of permits. Although, therefore the Regional Transport Authority had decided both the things on the same day, namely on 26-11-1968, it, however, passed a very inconsistent order, if one can term it as such, namely having regard to the needs of the locality they had decided to increase the permits but again rejected the application of the 4th Respondent for such a contract carriage permit on irrelevant consideration without taking into account the relevant factors that are the guide lines provided for under Section 50 of the Act. The State Transport Appellate Authority has set aside both the orders of the Regional Transport Authority. We are really not concerned with the order of the Regional Transport Authority regarding increase of permits which has been set aside by the State Transport Authority. The subject-matter of this Rule is only the order of the appellate authority which is a different authority from the State Transport Authority. Since under Section 50, the Regional Transport Authority had to bear in mind the relevant considerations, as stated above, the appellate authority has also to keep in mind the same considerations in disposing of the appeal before it. On a perusal of the order of the appellate authority we find that the relevant matters that are required to be considered under Section 50 were kept in view and the 4th Respondent was allowed a contract carriage permit. It is true that, as Mr. Goswami has pointed out, the appellate authority has referred to there being vacancy, which, according to Mr. Goswami, has been wiped out by the order of the State Transport Authority on 30/31-5-1969 setting aside the earlier order of the Regional Transport Authority in that behalf. The question, however, is whether the existence of the vacancy in a route is a relevant matter in considering an application for a contract carriage permit under Section 50. We are unable to hold that such a consideration is relevant. The question, however, is whether the existence of the vacancy in a route is a relevant matter in considering an application for a contract carriage permit under Section 50. We are unable to hold that such a consideration is relevant. As a matter of fact, since under Section 57(1) at any time a person can come to the Regional Transport Authority with an application for contract carriage permit which application is not even required to be published as we are told, there is no need for any existing vacancy as such in considering the application. The only guide lines are those that are laid down under Section 50 and we are satisfied that these relevant considerations have weighed with the appellate authority in granting the permit in favour of the 4th Respondent. Mr. Goswami very strenuously contended that there is a condition precedent implicit under Section 50 for the Regional Transport Authority to take first a decision to increase the permits before an application under Section 50 may be granted. We are unable to read that requirement in Section 50 nor that can be spelt out. We do not think, therefore, that the submission has any force. 3. In the result, the application fails and is accordingly dismissed. We will, however, make no order as to costs. 4. R. S. BINDRA, J.:- I agree. Application dismissed.