JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, C.J. - The Petitioner Kedarnath Kar holds a permanent contract carriage permit granted by the R.T.A., Puri, in respect of his vehicle O.R.C. 1141. The sitting capacity of that vehicle is 8. On 12th of December, 1969 the Petitioner applied to the R.T.A., Puri, u/s 59(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act IV of 1939) (hereinafter to be referred to as the. Act) and Rule 70(b)(ii) of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules) for permission to replace his vehicle O.R.C. 1141 by O.R.C. 2968. The sitting capacity of O.R.C. 2968, is 26. On 14th of March, 1970 the Chairman, R.T.A., Puri, allowed this application. On 25th of April, 1970 Sachidananda Patnaik (Opposite party No. 1) filed an objection against the order of the Chairman. The objection was over ruled on 27th of April, 1970 and the R.T.A. approved the action of the Chairman. Opposite party No. 1 filed M.V. Revision Case No. 5 of 1970 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (opposite party No. 2) against the order of the R.T.A., Puri, granting replacement. Opposite party No. 2 allowed the revision by his order dated 31-7-1971 (Annexure-4) and set aside the order of the R.T.A., Puri allowing the replacement. This writ application has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing Annexure 4 by issue of a writ of certiorari. 2. Opposite party No. 2 has referred to a large number of irrelevant sections which Mr. Parija also placed reliance. The sole question for determination in this writ application is whether the order for replacement passed by the R.T.A., Puri, is in accordance with Section 59(2) of the Act and Rule 70(b)(ii) second proviso, of the Rules. 3. Section 59(2) of the Act runs thus: The holder of a permit may, with the permission of the authority by which the permit was granted replace any vehicle covered by the permit by any other vehicle of the same nature. The essential ingredient of this sub-section is that the holder of the permit may replace any vehicle covered by the permit by any other vehicle of the same nature. The essential ingredient of this sub-section is that the holder of the permit may replace any vehicle covered by the permit by any other vehicle of the same nature. The authority to grant permission is to see whether the vehicle in respect of which there is a permit, which is intended to be replaced is of the same nature as the vehicle which is sought to replace the vehicle under permit. It was very strenuously contended by Mr. Parija that as the contract carriage with 8 seats was to be replaced by another carriage with 26 seats, the two vehicles are not of the same nature. He laid emphasis upon the carrying capacity of the two vehicles to determine the nature there of. This contention is wholly untenable in view of the amendment effected by Section 26 of Act 56 of 1969. The section, as it previously stood, contained the clause ?replace by another vehicle of the same nature and capacity any vehicle covered by the permit,? Thus, under the previous law, the word ?capacity? was one of the determining factors on the basis of which the permission was to be accorded. By the amendment the word ?capacity? has been deleted. It would, therefore, be no bar to the grant of a permit for replacement even if the carrying capacity of the two vehicles differs. The Objects and Reasons for this amendment have been stated as follows: It has been pointed out that replacement of a vehicle by another vehicle of the same capacity is difficult because the vehicles of recent ?models are generally of larger carrying capacity and that obtaining of a new permit involves not merely delay but competition with other new Applicants including some who have statutory advantage like a co-operative society. The proposed amendment seeks to protect the interest of a person whose permit has not expired but who, for good reasons, has to replace the vehicle covered by his permit by a new vehicle of a different capacity. 4. Rule 70(b)(ii) second proviso, of the Rules runs thus: 70(b) Upon receipt of an application under Sub-rule (a), the Regional Transport Authority may in? 4. Rule 70(b)(ii) second proviso, of the Rules runs thus: 70(b) Upon receipt of an application under Sub-rule (a), the Regional Transport Authority may in? its discretion reject the application (ii) If the new vehicle proposed differs in material respects from the old; x x x x Provided that a difference in the carrying capacity of the vehicle shall not be deemed to be a difference in material respects as referred to in Clause (ii) of this sub-rule. The second proviso clarifies the position that at the time of consideration of replacement no attention would at all be paid to the question of difference in the carrying capacity of the two vehicles. 5. In this case, the Petitioner had his vehicle O.R.C. 1141 with the carrying capacity of 8 seats. This was a contract carriage under a permit. Under the same permit he wanted to replace this vehicle by O.R.C. 2968 having a carrying capacity of 26 seats. The difference in the tarrying capacity of the two vehicles does not stand in the way of allowing the application for replacement u/s 59(2) of the Act or Rule 70(b)(ii), second Proviso of the Rules. It was, therefore, open to the concerned authority to allow the application for replacement. These being the two provisions for considering the question of replacement, consideration of other sections and rules not germane to the point in issue was wholly irrelevant and opposite party No. 2 committed errors of law apparent on the face of the record in traversing beyond what was required under law. His order Annexure 4 dated 31-7-1971 is contrary to law and is liable to be quashed. 6. In the result, we allow the writ application with costs against opposite party No. 1 and quash Annexure 4 dated 31-7-1971 by issuing a writ of certiorari. Hearing fee of Rs. 100/- K.B. Panda, J. 7. I agree.