Judgement GOSWAMI, C. J.:- This application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order for temporary permit in favour of the 5th Respondent made by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Nowgong. 2. The permit was only for four months expiring on 24th June, 1972. The petitioner, who claims to be the Secretary of the North West Transport Syndicate, a Transport Association, operating in the area, felt aggrieved by the issue of the temporary permit as, according to him, it has affected their revenue. The petitioner objects to the issue of the permit on the ground that the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, has no jurisdiction to grant temporary permit under Section 62 of the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, in absence of a delegation of power in that behalf by the Regional Transport Authority. He has taken a specific point in his application in that regard. Although the Regional Transport Authority is represented before us by Counsel, there is no affidavit to the contrary from that body. We will, therefore, assume that the Regional Transport Authority has not delegated its power of issuing temporary permit under Section 62 of the Act to its secretary. Mr. Bhuyan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, also submitted that Rule 72(a), which is invoked in this case, as enabling the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority to grant temporary permit is in conflict with Section 44(5) of the Act. The learned Advocate-General, Assam, who is appearing to support the validity of the Rule, submits that the rule is not open to any objection. He further submits that it is not in conflict with any provisions of the Act nor with Section 44(5). This rule along with other rules has been made by the State Government in exercise of powers Tinder Section 68 of the Act. It is admitted by both sides that that section authorises the making of the rule in question. 3. The point that arises for consideration is whether the rule is actually in conflict with Section 44(5). That section reads as follows: "44(5). The State Transport Authority and any Regional Transport Authority, if authorised in this behalf by rules made under Section 68, may delegate such of its powers and functions to such authority or person and subject to such restrictions, limitations and conditions as may be prescribed by the said rules". That section reads as follows: "44(5). The State Transport Authority and any Regional Transport Authority, if authorised in this behalf by rules made under Section 68, may delegate such of its powers and functions to such authority or person and subject to such restrictions, limitations and conditions as may be prescribed by the said rules". Section 68, as noted earlier, authorises the State Government to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of this Chapter. Section 62 which authorises the Regional Transport Authority to issue temporary permits is in this Chapter wherein Section 68 appears. Apart from Section 68(1), the learned Advocate-General was also referring to Section 68(2)(za) as authorising the making of the particular rule. As we have seen, Section 44(5) authorises the State Transport Authority and Regional Transport Authority to delegate such of its powers as it would like to part with. It, however, cannot delegate in absence of a rule made by the State Government authorising such delegation at the first instance and also designating the particular officers on whom such power may be delegated by the authorities concerned. Rule 73 is expressed in a very inartistic language and it look us quite a good deal of time to rationalise the same. It, however, appeals, shorn of details, that under this rule temporary permits may be granted by the Secretary of the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority or by any other officer named with approval of the Government to any person whether he is a registered owner of the vehicle or not. This rule although authorises the issue of temporary permits by the three different categories of officers named, does not proprio vigore grant to these officers power to issue permits. That power will have to be conferred under Section 44(5), now that the officers are designated under Rule 73, by the authorities concerned by appropriate resolutions. It is, therefore, clear that the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Nowgong, in absence of any resolution of the Regional Transport Authority delegating its powers to issue permit under S.62 of the Act was not competent to grant the temporary permit impugned in this case. The order of the Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Nowgong, is, therefore, without jurisdiction and is hereby quashed. The order of the Secretary Regional Transport Authority, Nowgong, is, therefore, without jurisdiction and is hereby quashed. The objection with regard to the validity of Rule 73 does not stand and that rule, in our opinion, is valid, and is not in conflict with Section 44(5) of the Act. 4. In the result, the application is allowed. We will, however, make no order as to costs. 5. BAHARUL ISLAM, J.- I agree. Application allowed. ----------------