JUDGMENT Banerjee J. These appeals are at the instance of the Southern Bus Syndicate which is a registered association of operators of stage carriage buses in Route No. 89 between Diamond Harbour and Kakdwip and Route No. 89A between Diamond Harbour find Raidighi. There are other petitioners who are appellants Nos. 2 to 6 before us. They were plying stage carriage buses under permanent sage carriage permits issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Calcutta Region the respondent No. 2. 2. The petitioners in the Rule which was discharged by the single Judge contended, inter alia, that the respondent No. 2 in utter violation of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder granted various permits from time to time for buses. For the present, in the writ application out of which these appeals arise they challenge the advertisement dated the 28th August 1974 by which it is alleged that the applications were invited for grant of additional stage carriage permits in respect of the Route Nos. 89 and 89A as also for the additional permit in Route Nos. 92 and 92A between Bongaon to Boyra and Bongaon to Sindrnighat. This second item of the advertisement is being challenged in Civil Rule No. 6399(W) of 1974 and F.M.A 20 of 1979 which was heard analogously with F.M.A. 21 of 1979. 3. The Hon'b'e Judge hearing the matter was pleased to hold inter alia that the R.T.A has already fixed the limit of the stage carriages under S. 47(3) of the Motor Vehicle's Act by the resolution dated the 23rd July 1974. It was stated that the notification under S. 57(2) was thereafter published on the 28th August 1974, whereby the applications were invited for grant of stage carriage permit for fifteen additional vehicles in the said route. On the 23rd September 1974, it appears that the resolution had been passed by the R.T.A. that the additional fifteen stage carriage permits will be issued on the said route, It does not appear from the judgment of the Hon'ble Judge that the order of 23.9.74 was ever placed before the Hon'ble Judge According to the Hon'ble Judge there was a compliance with S. 43(7) of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment the appellants in Appeals Nos. 20 and 21 of 1979 have preferred these appeals. 5. Mr. 4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment the appellants in Appeals Nos. 20 and 21 of 1979 have preferred these appeals. 5. Mr. S.C. Bose appearing on behalf of the appellants in Appeal No. 20 of 1979 and Mr. Maitra appearing on behalf of the appellants in Appeal No. 21 of 1979 argued the only point that has been argued before the Hon'ble Judge is that under the provisions of S. 47(3) of the Act the R.T.A. cannot entertain applications for grant of additional stage carriage permits in the route where permanent operators of stage carriages already plying. Mr. Bose contended that the advertisement itself which is annexure 'B' to the petition of motion is clear that the R.T.A was proposing to consider application for grant of additional stage carriage permits under S 48 of the Act in the routes mentioned in the advertisement. It is, therefore, argued by Mr. Bose that this advertisement is one which invites application under S. 48 of the Act for grant of permits and objections invited thereon are also in respect of the consideration of the application which may have been filed under S. 48 read with S. 46 of the Act for the grant of fifteen additional stage carriage permits. 6. Mr. Moitra adopted the argument of Mr. S.C. Bose and contended that the same defect as argued by Mr. Bose is appearing in routes Nos. 92 and 92A. It has been argued that no fixation of the limit of the permit under S. 47(3) has been made and therefore the advertisement inviting application under S 48 for grant of stage carriage permit cannot be entertained. It has been held by the Supreme Court in AIR 1970 SC 1542 (Md. Ibrahim v. S.T.A. Tribunal, Madras) that the R.T.A. is not obliged to hear operators while exercising jurisdiction under S. 47(3) in fixing the limit of the number of stage carriage permits. It has been said the R.T.A. while considering the fixation of the limit of the number of stage carriage permits under S 47(3) is not required to take into consideration any representation of the nature mentioned in S. 47(1) of the Act. It appears therefore it has now been settled that under S. 47(3) it is the exclusive jurisdiction of the R.T.A. to determine administratively the limit of permits to be granted in a particular route. It appears therefore it has now been settled that under S. 47(3) it is the exclusive jurisdiction of the R.T.A. to determine administratively the limit of permits to be granted in a particular route. It has been further held in the said judgment that the order under S. 47(3) is not a matter of mere form but of substance. If from the record of the R.T.A it can be spelt out that the authority had fixed the limit of number of stage carriage permits before consideration of the application for the grant of permits there is compliance with S. 47(3) of the Act. In the Supreme Court judgment reported in AIR 1974 SC 391 , it was also held following the judgment reported in AIR 1970 SC 1542 that the determination of number of stage carriage for which the stage carriage permit may be granted in the route is to be first done and thereafter applications for permit are to be entertained. In the present case following these two decisions it appears to us that 28th August 1974 advertisement on the face of it is not in compliance with the resolution dated 23.7.74 and is prima facie without jurisdiction as yet the mandatory provision of S. 47(3) has not been followed by the R.T.A before entertaining application for grant of additional stage carriage permit. 7. Mr. Malay Bose, however, produced before us the record of the R.T.A. and contended that this advertisement is not one under S. 57 read with S. 47(3) but one under S. 47(3) of the Act. It is contended that the hearing was given though it was not necessary under the law to give hearing for the purpose of fixation of the limit by fifteen additional stage carriage permits was made on 23.9.74 has to be found by the resolution. 8. In our opinion, Mr. Molay Bose's contention on the face of it cannot be accepted. It is contended that the hearing was given though it was not necessary under the law to give hearing for the purpose of fixation of the limit by fifteen additional stage carriage permits was made on 23.9.74 has to be found by the resolution. 8. In our opinion, Mr. Molay Bose's contention on the face of it cannot be accepted. It is clear from the record as well as from the notice and resolution dated 23.7.74 that they have invited objection not only for the grant of permits but also for the purpose of grant of additional number of permits in the proposed route which are proposed as we have already held following the Supreme Court decision that this is not for the R.T.A. in exercising power under S 47(3) of the Act to give any hearing to the operator already existing on the route and this is a matter for the R.T.A. to consider and no one else has any right to prefer any objection before fixation of limit of the stage carriage permit on a particular route. Therefore, when the R.T.A. invited objection for the purpose of granting fifteen additional permits and at the same time invited application for the grant of additional permits under S. 48 of the Act. When we read such is the advertisement on 28.8.74 read with the resolution dated 23.7.74 we cannot but hold that the R.T.A. before fixation of the limit of the particular route has invited application for additional permits as they have already decided fifteen additional permits should be issued in respect of the route and admittedly in this case the decision, according to Mr. Bose was taken after hearing the objection on 23.9.74. In our opinion, before fixation of the limit under S. 47(3) the applications having been invited by advertisement dated 28.3.74 this advertisement is on the face of it contrary to the Supreme Court judgment hereinbefore stated. 9. Mr. Malay Bose, however, contended on the basis of the Division Bench decision reported in 75 CWN 346 that in the said case it has been held that in Route No. 17 twenty permits were declared by the R.T.A. In the newly sanctioned route ten stage carriage permits were sanctioned out of twenty sanctioned by the State Government. Then out of the remaining five permits five more permits were granted to the subsequent completion of the route. Then out of the remaining five permits five more permits were granted to the subsequent completion of the route. The remaining five was granted by resolution dated 8.10.74 to meet the present public demand. Mr, Bose contended on the basis of this judgment that it is open to the R.T.A. to grant further additional permit if the limit has already been fixed Mr. Bose and Mr. Maitra, appearing on behalf of the appellants, also relied upon this judgment for their proposition that five additional permits cannot be issued in violation of S. 47(3) of the Act. It must be remembered that from the judgment itself we do not find when for the first time the new route was opened and when the limit was fixed under S. 47(3) of the Act. We do not also find whether this fixation of the route under S. 47 was made before or after the amendment of the Motor Vehicles Amending Act, 1956. It is clear that the Motor Vehicles Amending Act, 1956 which added S. 47(3) in the statute came into force with effect from the 15th February 1957. Admittedly, in the present case new route permits were sought to be given in 1964 when the statutory provisions have come into force. Even if such fixation has been made under S 47(1) as already existing at the time when S. 47(3) was inserted in the Amendment Act, 1956 a fresh fixation was called for. Their Lordships of the Division Bench already held that if five additional permits were issued without compliance with S. 47(3) in the route already existing it is always necessary according to their Lordships to determine the number of stage carriage required on the route under S. 47(3) before entertaining applications for grant of additional permits. It has been held in the said judgment that such advertisement is irregular and, therefore, the objection under S. 47 read with S. 57 of the Act in respect of the suitable candidate of the new permit cannot be one objection under S. 47(1) read with S. 57 of the Act because it has been held by their Lordships as well as by the Supreme Court that under S. 47(3) no question of hearing objection does arise. 10. In AIR 1975 SC 386 on which Mr. 10. In AIR 1975 SC 386 on which Mr. Bose made strong reliance did not, in our opinion, change the law inasmuch as under S. 47(3) the R.T.A. must first of all fix the limits of permits to be issued in a particular route before entertaining an application for grant of permits. In fact, the Supreme Court referred to the case reported in 1970 SC 1542 with approval. In the facts of this case, however, it was held from the statement in the order of the Tribunal that before the notification was issued a decision has already been taken by the R.T.A. on the basis of the traffic survey conducted in the period that one bus should be introduced on the route. This notification, according to the Supreme Court, was notification under S. 47(3) and therefore a valid order has been made under S. 47(3) of the Act that one such permit can be given to the stage carriage permit Apart from the fact, the facts which appear in the Supreme Court differs from the facts we have here. The Supreme Court has not deviated from its earlier judgment that S. 47(3) is a must before an application for stage carriage permit under Ss. 48/46 of the Act is to be entertained. In view of the Supreme Court decision and in view of the fact that the resolution dated 23.7.74 which directs the R.T.A. to take steps for placement of fifteen more stage carriages on the permanent permits on the Route No. 89 be taken and thereafter objections were invited, heard and a decision was taken. The resolution of R.T.4 dated 23.7.74 in our opinion, cannot be taken to be one under S. 47(3), more so, read with the advertisement dated 28.8.74. The advertisement called for objection for grant of permit and also invites application for the additional fifteen stage carriage permits in respect of the route. Therefore, in our opinion, this cannot be one under S. 47(3) of the Act which is in exclusive jurisdiction of the R.T.A. where the existing operators have no say in the matter. 11. In the circumstances hereinbefore stated, in our opinion, the Hon'ble Judges judgment cannot be upheld and must be set aside. The advertisement dated 28.8.74 inviting application for additional stage carriage permit and/or inviting objection to the grant under S. 47(3) as stated by Mr. 11. In the circumstances hereinbefore stated, in our opinion, the Hon'ble Judges judgment cannot be upheld and must be set aside. The advertisement dated 28.8.74 inviting application for additional stage carriage permit and/or inviting objection to the grant under S. 47(3) as stated by Mr. Bose for fixation of the limit of the stage carriages and the consequent resolution dated 23.7.74 cannot be sustained and must be quashed. We make it clear further that one cannot read the resolution dated 23.7.74 being a resolution under S 47(3) because it has been stated by the R.T.A. that necessary steps for the additional permit be taken. Question of fixation of the limit of the permit in a particular route does not, on the face of it, arise. We, therefore, allow the appeal, make the Rule absolute and quash the impugned orders. 12. Liberty is given to the R.T.A. to proceed in accordance with the Motor Vehicles Act, if they so like. There will be no order as to costs. B.C. Ray, J : I agree. Appeal allowed.