ORDER B.N. Sapru, J. - Notice of this Writ Petition was served on the Standing Counsel and he was granted time to file a counter-affidavit. No counter-affidavit has been filed despite time being allowed. In the notices issued to the Standing Counsel it was stated that the writ petition itself may be decided when it is next listed for admission. The writ petition is being decided after hearing the Standing Counsel also. 2. Shri Narain Dass, a public carriage operator, applied for the grant of two national permits, one for the eastern tone and the other for the northern zone. The State Transport Authority decided to grant the two permits to him. The petitioner has obtained the permit for the eastern zone. When he applied for the issue of the permit for the northern zone, he was required to file an affidavit. This requirement was in,accordance with the resolution of the State Transport Authority dated 24-11-1984. The resolution of the State Transport Authority contained C111 which runs as follows : ijfeV tkjh djkrs le; izkFkhZ bl ckr dk 'kiFk i= nsxk fd mlds ifjokj esa bl ijfeV ds vfrfjDr dksbZ vU; tksuy vFkok us'kuy ifCyd dsfj;j ijfeV ugha gSA ifjokj dh ifjHkk"kk ds vuqlkj ,d ifjokj esa ifr iRuh o ukckfyx cPps gh ekus tk;saxs fdUrq ;fn dksbZ ckfyx lnL; vius ekrk firk ds lkFk jgrk gS rks og Hkh ,d gh ifjokj dk ekuk tk;sxkA fdUrq ;fn ckfyx lnL; o lacaf/kr ftyk vf/kdkjh ls bl vk'k; dk izek.k i= izLrqr djrk gS fd og vius ekrk firk ls vyx jg jgk gS rks mlds ijfeV izkIr djus gsrq ik= ekuk tk;sxkA 3. Since the petitioner had already taken out a permit for the eastern zone, he could not swear an affidavit that he did not hold a national/regional permit. As he did not give the required affidavit, the petitioner was not issued the permit for the northern zone. 4. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. 5. Sri. L. P. Naithani, the learned counsel for the petitioner, argues that under S. 63(12) conditions are specified under which no national permit shall be issued. As he did not give the required affidavit, the petitioner was not issued the permit for the northern zone. 4. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. 5. Sri. L. P. Naithani, the learned counsel for the petitioner, argues that under S. 63(12) conditions are specified under which no national permit shall be issued. Sub-clause (a) thereof provides that no national permit shall be issued to an individual owner if he already holds in his name three or more valid national permits or when he holds valid national permits as well as valid inter-State regional permits, if the aggregate number of such permits is three or more. 6. The argument of Sri. L. P. Naithani is that it was not open to the State Transport Authority to impose a condition laying down that no national permit will be issued to a person who holds another national permit. A restriction can only be imposed if a person holds three national permits. 7. The learned Standing Counsel is unable to show that the condition prescribed by the State Transport Authority is sustainable in law. 8. It is manifest that it is not open to the State Transport Authority to prescribe that not more than one national permit shall be granted to a person. The State Transport Authority can only act in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and not otherwise. 9. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed and Cl. 11 which has been quoted above is quashed. The permit already issued to the petitioner under the orders of this Courts shall continue in force in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs.