ORDER B.N. Sapru, J. - This writ petition is directed against the order of the S.T.A.T. dated 3-8-84 whereby the State Transport Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner applied for renewal of his permit which was to expire on 5-9-81. The matter was taken up at the meeting of the R.T.A. held on 27/29-2-84 and 1-3-84. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal has found that the petitioner appeared on that date and was heard and the order against which the appeal has been preferred was made in his presence. 3. The appeal was filed on 25-4-84 by the petitioner. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal found that the appeal was barred by time as it was presented more than 30 days after the order of the R.T.A. The limitation for filing the appeal has been computed by the Tribunal on the basis that it ran from the date when the order was made. Sri L.P. Naithani, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in this case the order was made on 1-3-84. The petitioner applied for the certified copy on 7-3-84 and the certified copy was delivered to the petitioner on 7-4-84 and the appeal was presented on 25-4-84. Under R. 71(2) of the Motor Vehicles Rules the limitation for filing an appeal runs from the date of the receipt of the order. In this case the order was admittedly received on 7-4-84 and the appeal was presented on 25-4-84 i.e. within a period of 20 days. Even if we add the period on which the order was made and the time taken by the appellant for applying for copy, the appeal would be within time. The Tribunal was in error in holding that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was barred by time. 4. In this case the petitioner's permit expired and he applied for renewal. The R.T.A. granted renewal subject to the petitioner's depositing a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as fine. The Tribunal was of the view that under S. 58(2) read with S. 64(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act the R.T.A. was competent to impose such a condition. Sri L. P. Naithani, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to a decision of Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.P. Srivastava in Writ Petition. No. 1251 of 1958, Bekari Mal v. Regional Transport Authority, Allahahad Region, Allahabad decided on 7-2-62. Sri L. P. Naithani, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to a decision of Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.P. Srivastava in Writ Petition. No. 1251 of 1958, Bekari Mal v. Regional Transport Authority, Allahahad Region, Allahabad decided on 7-2-62. In that case the R.T.A. in view of the past conduct of the petitioner, while granting renewal of a permit for five years, had imposed a condition suspending the permit of the petitioner for one month on the basis of his past record of the operation of the vehicle. The learned Judge pointed out that a permit can be suspended under S. 60 of the M.V. Act or under S. 123 of the Act. It was found in the case before the learned Judge that the permit had not been suspended under S. 123 of the Act. The suspension was sought to he justified under S. 60 of the Act. S. 60 provides that a permit can be suspended on the grounds (a) to (f) specified therein. The learned Judge pointed out that an order of suspension can be made under S. 60 of the Act during the existence of a valid permit and on one of the grounds mentioned in the section. A permit which has ceased to be operative and which is sought to he renewed cannot he suspended. 5. In the present case the order of the R.T.A. has been made under S. 60(3) of the Act. That section authorises the R.T.A. not to cancel or suspend the permit if the holder of the permit agrees to pay certain sum of money. In this case the R.T.A. decided to renew the permit on the condition that the petitioner pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. This the authority was not competent to do while renewing a permit. 6. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 3-4-83 of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) and the impugned order of the R.T.A. dated 27/28-2-84 and 1-3-84 in so far as it required the petitioner to deposit/pay a sum of Rs. 10000/- are quashed. The petitioner is entitled to his costs. 7. The impugned order dated 3-4-83 of the State Transport Appellate Tribunal (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) and the impugned order of the R.T.A. dated 27/28-2-84 and 1-3-84 in so far as it required the petitioner to deposit/pay a sum of Rs. 10000/- are quashed. The petitioner is entitled to his costs. 7. I may add that the writ petition came up for admission on 10-1-85 on which date the Standing Counsel was given time up to 28-4- 85 to file a counter-affidavit and it was made clear that the case would be disposed of on that date. The Standing Counsel states that the counter-affidavit is being prepared. However, as there is no factual dispute as to facts and a pure question of law arose, the writ petition has been decided at the time of admission.