M.C. JAIN, J.—This Special Appeal under Sec. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated April 12, 1984 whereby the appellants writ petition was rejected. 2. The grievance of the appellant before this Court is related to the imposition of the condition in the appellants permit to the effect that the appellant shall submit a tax clearance certificate within 60 days of the order of the renewal. The Regional Transport Authority granted the renewal of permit by its order dated June 25, 1982 but the renewal endorsement was not made in the permit and a condition was imposed regarding the submission of tax clearance certificate. 3. Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant did not clarify the position as to whether the tax has already been paid or not. When there was no clear averments as to payment of tax, the learned Single Judge refrained from giving any direction to the Regional Transport Authority, Jodhpur. However, the learned Judge observed in that case that if the petitioner had complied with the order, the Regional Transport Authority would make the necessary endorsement on the permit. The writ petition was rejected with the aforesaid observations. 4. Mr. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously urged before us that the imposition of the aforesaid condition by the Regional Transport Authority was without jurisdiction. The question of clearance of tax could not be taken into account by the Regional Transport Authority, while considering the application for renewal of the permit. The provisions of Sec. 58 coupled with the provisions of Sec. 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, nowhere lay down that any such condition can be imposed by the Regional Transport Authority while ordering the grant of renewal. 5. Mr. Calla, learned Government Advocate on the other hand, submitted that such a condition can be imposed as the condition is in the interest of public. At the time of consideration of the grant of renewal of permit, the authority is guided by the same principles and considerations as are required initially for the grant of permit as is provided in sub-section (2) of Sec. 58 of the Act, Mr. At the time of consideration of the grant of renewal of permit, the authority is guided by the same principles and considerations as are required initially for the grant of permit as is provided in sub-section (2) of Sec. 58 of the Act, Mr. Calla submitted that the question that arises for consideration in this appeal, came up before the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Arbind Kumar v. Nand Kishore(I) and on the basis of the aforesaid decision of the Patna High Court, in which reference has been made to a decision of the Supreme Court in Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd v. State of Rajasthan (2) and reliance was also placed on Onkarmal Mistri v. R.T.A. Darjeeling (3). Mr. Calla submitted that the condition imposed by the R.T.A. in the present case is a condition which is within its jurisdiction and is valid one. 6. We have given our careful consideration to the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The controversy, in our opinion, primarily rests on the question as to whether the R. T. A. can take into account while granting permit initially or at the time of renewal of permit that the vehicles are free from tax liability and whether such a consideration is a consideration having relation with the interest of the public in general. In Arbind Kumars case (supra), Narasimham, C. J. speaking for the court in para 8 observed;- "Moreover, it cannot be said that the imposition of a condition to the grant of a permit under the Motor Vehicles Act to the effect that all outstanding transport taxes should be paid is out side the scope of the Act. If the Authority had insisted that the petitioner should pay up all other public demands, such an order may be invalid." 7. After referring to the nature of the transport taxes placing reliance on the observations of the Supreme Court in Automobiles case (supra), it was observed that the collection of the transport tax is vitally connected with the organization of the transport system in the State and user of the roads by the public service vehicles. Hence, the requirement about payment of the outstanding transport taxes before stage carrier permit can be given to an applicant can not be struck down as being wholly unconnected with the subject. Hence, the requirement about payment of the outstanding transport taxes before stage carrier permit can be given to an applicant can not be struck down as being wholly unconnected with the subject. An argument was advanced in that case, that Bihar Act XVII of 1950 and the rules made thereunder contain ample provision for realization of this tax and, for that purpose, it was not necessary to impose such a condition while granting the permit. In respect of this argument, it was observed that this argument is beside the point. It was further observed as under:- "Once it is conceded (quite properly) that in granting a permit, the R.T.A shall have regard to the interests of travelling public using the roads in the State and once it is clearly established that transport taxes are in the nature of compensatory taxes. It is always open to the Authority to insist on payment of such taxes before granting permit because such a condition will be in the interests of the general travelling public using motor vehicles. It may be that the transport tax is a tax on the persons travelling in the vehicles and not on the vehicles themselves but this makes no distinction in principle so far as the existence of a direct nexus between the condition imposed and the purpose of Section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act is concerned. 8. Mr. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the appellant tried to distinguish Arbindkumars case (supra) on the ground that it was a case of grant of permit but not the case of renewal. He urged that when such a condition is not imposed at the time of grant of initial permit than the application of renewal of the permit can only be processed in accordance with the considerations of the original grant and the same considerations, which were taken into account at the time of examining the application for grant of permit, would be attracted to an application for renewal of the permit. 9. We are unable to agree with the aforesaid submission of Mr. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the appellant. To our mind, the consideration would be the same, whether it is an application for the grant of permit or whether it is an application for the grant of renewal of permit. The consideration is the interest of public in general. 9. We are unable to agree with the aforesaid submission of Mr. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the appellant. To our mind, the consideration would be the same, whether it is an application for the grant of permit or whether it is an application for the grant of renewal of permit. The consideration is the interest of public in general. In view of the fact that the transport taxes are in the nature of the compensatory taxes as held by the Supreme Court in Automobile Transports case (supra), the public interest lies in realisation of transport taxes. 10. Mr. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the appellant referred to a decision of this Court in Ram Narain vs. Registering Authority, Kota (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1122 of 1972, decided on March 3, 1976). In that case, the vehicle in question was brought to Kota from Madhya Pradesh and the owner applied for assignment of a new registration number of this State in respect of the vehicle No. MPF 7778. The vehicle subsequently changed hands and the proceedings for transfer of the ownership were also taken and stage carriage permit was granted by the Regional Transport Authority, Kota in respect of the Bus in question. Subsequently, the Registering Authority, Kota called upon the petitioner to submit no dues certificate of M.P. State in respect of the vehicle No. RJR 9211 and a notice was given to the petitioner, that in case, the requisite no dues certificate is not produced before the Authority concerned, the registration number RJR 9211 will be cancelled and he also directed the S.H.O., Sunel & Bhawani Mandi to seize the registration of the aforesaid Bus. While considering the question of imposition of the condition by the Registering Authority, it was observed by the learned Single Judge that there is no condition specified in the provisions of Sec. 29 (2) of the Act to the effect that the assignment of a new registration mark by the Registering Authority, where the vehicle is kept, shall be refused in case, the owner of the vehicle is unable to produce a certificate of no outstanding dues from the Registering Authority of the State in which the vehicle was earlier registered. What is required by the Registering Authority, is whether the certificate of registration of the vehicle in question is in force and is valid for the period immediately before which the application for assignment of new registration number is made. Learned Single Judge further observed that in the absence of any provision in the Act or the Rules made thereunder, the submission of a no due certificate or no objection from the other State, where the vehicle in question was previously registered, the demand made by the respondent in that respect resulting in the cancellation of the registration of the vehicle in question together with the threat to the effect that the certificate of registration in respect thereof would be seized, are acts which are obviously without jurisdiction and invalid. 11. The aforesaid case, in our opinion, is distinguishable. Here, the application is for renewal of permit and as is observed by us that the considerations are the same while granting the renewal of the permit, the R.T.A. legitimately can look into the question as to whether the tax has been paid by the appellant or not. As already considered above, the question of clearance of tax, is a question relating to the interest of the public so such a condition can validly be imposed. 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in our opinion, the appeal is devoid of any force, so the same is hereby dismissed summarily.