JUDGMENT K.N. Goyal, J. - The petitioner has challenged the validity of a meeting of the Regional Transport Authority, Lucknow, which is being held today. 2. Three new routes were created by the Regional Transport Authority at its meeting held on May 28, 1983. In respect of the route Khajuria-Palia-Bhira-Lakhimpur, which was one of the new routes, the applicant was also an applicant. The application of the petitioner, along with other application, was duly published in the prescribed manner. The gazette notification in that regard is dated October 29, 1983. That notification did not mention any date of meeting at which the applications and representations would be considered. Subsequently another notification was published in the gazette dated December 17, 1983 notifying that the applications and representations would be considered at meetings to be held on 27th and 28th January, 1984. A meeting was held, but it was adjourned for February 17, 1984, again on February 17, 1984 the meeting was adjourned to 28th and 29th March, 1984. The meeting held on 28th/29th March, 1984 was adjourned sine-die. The petitioner thereafter learnt from a news item published in the Urdu daily "Qaumi Awaaz" Lucknow dated May 8, 1984 that the adjourned meeting would be held on 10th and 11th May. Thereupon this writ petition was filed yesterday and has come up for orders before us today. 3. Learned Chief Standing Counsel has stated on the basis of instructions that at the meeting of 28th/29th March, 1984, it was announced in the presence of the petitioner that the date of the next meeting would be published in the news papers and would also be intimated to individual applicants by post. The petitioner disputed the correctness of this assertion. 4. One other applicant has taken notice of this writ petition. He is represented by Sri U.K. Dhaon who has produced before us a notice of the meeting which his client has received by post. This notice shows that it was despatched under certificate of posting. It specified the date, time and place of the meeting. The notice is dated May 1, 1984. According to the Chief Standing Counsel the notices were actually despatched on 3rd and 4th May. Sri Dhaon's client claims to have received it on 7th May. The petitioner disclaims the receipt of any such intimation by post. 5. It specified the date, time and place of the meeting. The notice is dated May 1, 1984. According to the Chief Standing Counsel the notices were actually despatched on 3rd and 4th May. Sri Dhaon's client claims to have received it on 7th May. The petitioner disclaims the receipt of any such intimation by post. 5. The contention of the petitioner is that the meeting which is now being held from today is bad for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri S.G. Misra has contended that thirty days notice is required for every meeting or at any rate for a meeting which was adjourned without fixing any date of the next meeting. 6. Section 57(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, omitting the proviso which is not relevant, reads as follows : - "On receipt of an application for a stage carriage permit or a public carrier's permit, the Regional Transport Authority shall make the application available for inspection at the office of the Authority and shall publish the application or the substance thereof in the prescribed manner together with a notice of the date before which representation in connection there with may be submitted and the date, not being less than thirty days from such application, on which, and the time and place at which, the application and any representations received will be considered." 7. There is no dispute that the applications of various applications have been made available for inspection at the office of the R.T.A. There is also no dispute that the applications have been duly published in the manner prescribed. It is also admitted that the representations were duly submitted and that more than thirty days had expired before the date on which the first meeting for consideration of the application and representations was to take place. Thus the provisions of this sub-section cannot be said to have been violated in any manner. So far as the adjourned meetings are concerned it is well settled that "an adjourned meeting is deemed to be a continuation of the former meeting and no new notice is necessary unless the regulations so prescribe or the adjournment has been sine-die". (Vide Shackleton on the Law and Practise of Meetings, sixth Edition, page 66). 8. So far as the adjourned meetings are concerned it is well settled that "an adjourned meeting is deemed to be a continuation of the former meeting and no new notice is necessary unless the regulations so prescribe or the adjournment has been sine-die". (Vide Shackleton on the Law and Practise of Meetings, sixth Edition, page 66). 8. Thus it cannot be stipulated that thirty days notice was required even for an adjourned meeting. In the instant case the adjournment which took on 28th/29th March, 1984, was no doubt sine-die. This merely implied that some sort of notice should be given before the new meeting was held. Some notice is necessary because unless the persons concerned know about the date, time and place of the meeting they would be unable to make their representations. That would amount to denial of an opportunity of hearing. In the instant case, so far as the petitioner is concerned he may not have received the notice which was sent under certificate of posting, but he admittedly has come to know of the meeting through the press at least two days before it was going to be held. This information he received by his coming across a news item in the "Qaumi Awaaz" of that date. We have also been shown on behalf of the Chief Standing Counsel some other newspapers. The "Amrit Prabhat" of the 6th May shows that news item date-lined "Lucknow 5th May", according to which a meeting of the R.T.A. to consider applications for the routes concerned would be held in the office of the R.T.A. on 10th and 11th May from 10 a.m. The "Patrika" of 6th May also contains a similar news item without however giving the time of the meeting. "The times of India" Lucknow Edition, 6th May also give these details without the lime of the meeting, and it also mentions that the information is based on press release by the R.T.A. 9. The petitioner who admittedly has come to know of the two consecutive dates of the meeting two days before the commencement of the meeting could very well have ascertained from the R.T.A. office the time of the meeting. She has thus in no way been prejudiced by any lacuna in the press report seen by her. So far as the alleged shortness of the notice is concerned the petitioner has already made her representations. She has thus in no way been prejudiced by any lacuna in the press report seen by her. So far as the alleged shortness of the notice is concerned the petitioner has already made her representations. She must have also collected whatever evidence she needed for being presented at the earlier meeting. No oral evidence is taken in these meetings. It cannot, therefore, be said, in the circumstances, that two days time was too short for her to make proper representations for being heard at the meeting. 10. We thus find no good ground to interfere with the holding of the meeting. The petitioner has thus no merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine.