JUDGMENT 1. - The facts which have given rise to this writ petition briefly are that a non-temporary stage carriage permit was granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur to M/s. Vagad Motor Service on Banswara-Dungarpur via Talwara, Garhi, Sagwara route (hereinafter referred to as 'the route'). The aforesaid permit appears to have been granted as an alternative route permit in lieu of a permit on Dungarpur Ratanpur route, as appears from a copy of the permit placed on record as Ex.1. The aforesaid permit was valid upto July 1, 1968 and it was renewed thereafter for a period of three years upto July, 1971. M/s. Vagad Motor Service applied for a further renewal of the aforesaid permit on December 20, 1970. The application for renewal came up for consideration before the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the RTA') on April 26, 1971 and the renewal, of the permit appears to have been allowed by the RTA subject to the condition of production of a 1959 or higher model vehicle upto December 31, 1971. A peremptory condition also appears to have been imposed in respect of the grant of the renewal of the permit of M/s. Vagad Motor Service, to the effect that in case the permit holder failed to replace the existing vehicle by a 1959 or above model vehicle by December 31, 1971, the permit would automatically stand cancelled. It was not disputed at any stage that M/s. Vagad Motor Service failed to replace the existing vehicle by a 1959 or higher model vehicle upto December 31, 1971. However, on December 30, 1971 the permit holder submitted an application before the Secretary, RTA to the effect that he may be allowed two months' further time to replace the existing vehicle by a vehicles of 1959 or higher model and till then the existing vehicle, bearing registration No. RJJ 135 may be allowed to be plied on the route. The Secretary, RTA informed the owner of M/s. Vagad Motor Service by his letter dated January 22, 1972 that permission for extension of time, for a period of two months with effect from January 1, 1972 was granted to him to employ a prescribed model vehicle in place of the existing vehicle, in respect of his permit on the route, failing which the permit would be treated as cancelled. The permit holder does not appear to have employed a vehicle of 1959 or higher model in respect of his permit on the route even within the aforesaid extended period of two months. 2. The petitioner meanwhile applied for the grant of a non-temporary stage carriage permit on the route and his application came up for consideration before the RTA on April 10, 1972. The RTA took note of the fact that M/s. Vagad Motor Service had failed to replace its existing vehicle No. RJJ 135 by a 1959 on higher model vehicle with in the prescribed time, namely upto December 31, 1971 or even within the extended period of two months, nor it obtained any endorsement of renewal on the permit, either in respect of the existing vehicle or in respect of a new vehicle and in these circumstances, in view of the peremptory condition imposed by the RTA, the permit stood automatically revoked. In the vacancy caused on the route on account of the revocation of the permit of M/s. Vagad Motor Service, a non-temporary stage carriage permit was granted in the petitioner on the route by the RTA by its resolution dated April 10, 1972. A permit was also issued to the petitioner on the route on June 6, 1972 in pursuance of the aforesaid resolution of the RTA. 3. M/s. Vagad Motor Service filed an appeal as well as a revision petition against the resolution of the RTA dated 10. 1972 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan (briefly referred to hereinafter as 'the Tribunal'). The Tribunal by its order dated November 27, 1972 held that an appeal was incompetent, as the case of M/s. Vagad Motor Service did not fall under any of the clauses of Section 64 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). However, the Tribunal was of the view that a revision petition under Section 64 A of the Act was maintainable. The Tribunal considered the resolution of the RTA dated April 10, 1972 as an order cancelling the permit of M/s. Vagad Motor Services and held that as no reasonable opportunity of hearing was given to the permit holder, the permit could not have been revoked or cancelled by the RTA. The Tribunal considered the resolution of the RTA dated April 10, 1972 as an order cancelling the permit of M/s. Vagad Motor Services and held that as no reasonable opportunity of hearing was given to the permit holder, the permit could not have been revoked or cancelled by the RTA. The Tribunal was of the view that a condition was imposed upon the permit holder to replace its existing vehicles by a 1959 or higher model vehicle and in case that condition was not complied with, a notice under section 60 of the Act should have been given by the RTA to the permit holder to shows cause why the permit should not be cancelled. Thus the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no legal order of revocation or cancellation of the permit of M/s. Vagad Motor Service and as such there was no vacancy for the grant of a fresh non-temporary stage carriage permit on the route. In the circumstances, the Tribunal set aside the resolution of the RTA granting a non-temporary stage carriage permit on the route in favour of the petitioner. It is against this order of the Tribunal that the present writ petition has been filed in this Court. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel is that at the time of renewal of the permit of M/s. Vagad Motor Service a peremptory condition was imposed by the RTA that the said permit shall stand automatically cancelled in case the existing vehicle was not replaced by a vehicle of 1959 or higher model by December, 31, 1971 and that on account of the non-compliance with the aforesaid peremptory condition, the grant of renewal of permit in favour of M/s. Vagad Motor Service automatically stood revoked and that no further notice or opportunity of hearing was required to be given to the permit holder by the RTA before cancellation of its permit. 5. 5. Although the resolution of the RTA dated April 26, 1971 granting renewal of the permit of M/s. Vagad Motor Service has not been produced on the record, yet it is clear from the order of the Tribunal dated November 27, 1972 that the said renewal was allowed by the RTA subject to the condition that the present vehicle would be replaced by a vehicle of 1959 or higher model within the stipulated period, failing which the grant of renewal would stand automatically cancelled or revoked. It is also clear from a perusal of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal that M/s. Vagad Motor Service did not comply with the above mentioned peremptory condition within the prescribed time, namely upto December 31, 1971. Even if it be considered that on the application of the permit holder, the RTA had extended the period during which the existing vehicle could be replaced by a new vehicle of the prescribed model then also the permit holder failed to comply with the aforesaid condition as he did not employ a new vehicle of the prescribed model within either the specified time or even within the extended time. It has been held by this Court in Jagannath Singh v. The R.T.A. and ors, 1970 WLN 200 that in case the Regional Transport Authority, at the time of granting a permit imposed a peremptory condition then the permit shall stand revoked under Rule 86 (b) of the Motor Vehicles Rules 1951, because of the non compliance with the peremptory condition imposed at the time of granting the permit. It was also held in the aforesaid decision that no further time could be granted by the RTA, after an order revoking the permit has been passed by it, as the said Authority becomes functus officio in the matter and it thereafter becomes powerless to grant further extension of time after the permit has been revoked under a peremptory order. Thus in the present case, the RTA was absolutely powerless to extend the time during which the existing vehicle could be replaced by a 1959 or a higher model vehicle by M/s. Vagad Mtor Service beyond December 31, 1971, as after passing conditional order of renewal it had become fuctus officio in the matter. Thus in the present case, the RTA was absolutely powerless to extend the time during which the existing vehicle could be replaced by a 1959 or a higher model vehicle by M/s. Vagad Mtor Service beyond December 31, 1971, as after passing conditional order of renewal it had become fuctus officio in the matter. The Secretary, RTA could not have extended the time for employing a vehicles of the prescribed model by two months nor even the RTA was competent to extend the time for employing a prescribed model vehicle by M/s. Vagad Motor Service. However, in the present case, even if the extension of time could be considered to be permissible under the law, although it could not have been allowed by the RTA, yet as the permit holder failed to comply with the peremptory condition imposed upon it by the RTA to employ a vehicle of the prescribed model either upto December 31, 1971 or even within the extended period of two months, the permit of M/s. Vagad Motor Service stood automatically revoked under Rule 86 (b) of the Motor Vehicles Rules. The order of the Tribunal thus suffers from an apparent error, in as much as it thought that the renewal of the permit of M/s. Vagad Motor Service was cancelled or revoked by the RTA by its resolution dated April 10, 1972. There is no basis for taking such a view in as much as the RTA definitely stated in its resolution dated April, 10, 1972 (Ex.5) that on account of the non-compliance with the peremptory condition imposed upon the permit holder, the grant of renewal in its favour automatically stood revoked on the expiry of the prescribed period or at least on the expiry of the extended period. As the grant of renewal in favour of M/s. Vagad Motor Service was subject to a peremptory condition, the non-compliance of such condition resulted in the automatic revocation or cancellation of that permit. In these circumstances, it was not at all necessary for the RTA to give any further notice to the permit-holder under Section 60 of the Act, in the matter of revocation of renewal of its permit. The decision of this Court in M/s. Jai Hind Co-operative Transport Society Ltd., Jaipur v. Appellate Authority, Rajasthan, 1958 RLW 522 relied upon by the Tribunal in this connection is clearly distinguishable on facts. The decision of this Court in M/s. Jai Hind Co-operative Transport Society Ltd., Jaipur v. Appellate Authority, Rajasthan, 1958 RLW 522 relied upon by the Tribunal in this connection is clearly distinguishable on facts. In that case, there was no peremptory condition imposed upon the permit holder who was only allowed some time to replace the existing vehicle by another bus of prescribed model. In these circumstances, it was held by this Court that there was no automatic revocation of the grant of permit, on the expiry of the time allowed under Rule 86 (b). But in the present case, as a peremptory condition was attached to the renewal of the permit of M/s. Vagad Motor Service the said permit stood automatically revoked as a result of the non-compliance of the condition imposed for the renewal of that permit. The present case thus squarely falls within the dictum laid down in the decision of this Court in Jagannath Singh's case (1). 6. In Shakuntala Devi v. Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, 1970 RLW 275 it was held by this Court that if a peremptory condition was attached to the grant of a permit, namely that on the expiry of the time allowed the permit would stand automatically cancelled in case the vehicle of the prescribed model was not put in, then the Regional Transport Authority was not empowered to grant an extension of time, because it becomes functus officio as soon as it passes the peremptory order. It was also held in the aforesaid case that the Regional Transport Authority had no jurisdiction to extend the time beyond that which it had granted under the original order, in case a peremptory condition was imposed by it. Thus in the present case, the RTA was right in holding that on account of the imposition of the peremptory condition at the time of grant of renewal of the permit of M/s. Vagad Motor Service, the non compliance of the peremptory condition entailed the3 automatic revocation of the grant of renewal of that permit on the expiry of the time allowed under the resolution of the RTA dated April 26, 1971. The RTA therefore, was right in holding on April 10, 1972 that as the permit of M/s. Vagad Motor Service stood revoked a vacancy existed on the route and was also justified in granting non temporary stage carriage permit to the petitioner in the vacancy caused on account of the automatic revocation of the renewal of the permit of M/s. Vagad Motor Service. There was, therefore, no violation of the principles of natural justice in the present case, because the permit holder M/s. Vagad Motor Service was fully aware of the fact that a peremptory condition was imposed upon it at the time of renewal of its permit by the resolution of the RTA dated April 26, 1971. 7. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The3 order passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal Rajasthan dated November 27, 1972 is set aside & as a consequence thereof the resolution passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Udaipur dated April 10, 1972 granting a non-temporary stage carriage permit to the petitioner is restored. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. *******