JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of suspension of authorisation certificate passed by Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Ghaziabad and subsequent order dated December 26, 1985 passed by the Competent Authority, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, constituted under U.P. Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Act, 1976 cancelling the authorisation certificate. 2. The petitioner is holder of All U.P. Mini Bus Permit No. 336/STA/MB/72 covered by vehicle No. UHQ, - 9. An authorisation certificate to ply his Mini Bus was also issued to the petitioner for a period of one year on August 31, 1976. The authorisation certificate was renewed from time to time by the competent authority and the last authorisation certificate issued was valid upto December 6, 1985. The authorisation certificate is issued under the provisions of U.P. Motor Vehicle (Special Provisions) Act, 1976 read with U.P. Motor Vehicles (Special Provision) Regulation, 1976. Section 3 of Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Special Provision) Act, 1976 provides for Constitution of Competent Authority and Section 4 of the Act provides for issuance of authorisation certificate and its cancellation in certain circumstances mentioned therein. Regulation 11 (ii) provides for renewal of authorisation certificate by the Competent Authority upon the application moved in that behalf at least two months before the expiry of the validity of the authorisation certificate. Since the authorisation certificate issued in favour of the petitioner was valid till December 6, 1985, the petitioner moved an application as prescribed for renewal on October 5, 1985 before the Secretary of the Competent Authority. It has been averred in Paragraph 8 of the writ petition that the application for renewal was accompanied with no objection certificate issued by the Regional Manager. However, this allegation that no objection certificate was issued by the Regional Manager has not been admitted, in Paragraph 17 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the Regional Manager had only informed about the certain facts. It appears that before the question of renewal of authorisation certificate could be considered, the Regional Manager, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Ghaziabad, by means of order dated November 11, 1985 suspended the authorisation certificate of the petitioner w.e.f. November 11, 1985 to December 6, 1985 as it was valid till that date namely December 6, 1985. It appears that before the question of renewal of authorisation certificate could be considered, the Regional Manager, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Ghaziabad, by means of order dated November 11, 1985 suspended the authorisation certificate of the petitioner w.e.f. November 11, 1985 to December 6, 1985 as it was valid till that date namely December 6, 1985. As provided under Regulation 17(m) of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Special Provisions) Regulations, 1976 the petitioner preferred a representation before the Competent Authority against the order of suspension dated November 11, 1985 passed by the Regional Manager, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Ghaziabad. Along with representation the petitioner also filed an application for stay. It appears that the Secretary of the Competent Authority by way of interim measure renewed the authorisation certificate till December 17, 1985, as according to the records available to the learned Standing Counsel the matter was to he placed for consideration before the Competent Authority in the meeting scheduled for December 18, 1985. However, the Secretary of the Competent Authority also passed a detailed order on December 3, 1985 negating the pleas raised by the petitioner in the representation and ordered for placing his order before the Competent Authority in the next meeting. The petitioner was served with a communication contained in Annexure 6 to the writ petition dated December 26, 1985 informing that the Competent Authority had taken the decision cancelling the authorisation certificate of the petitioner. The decision of the Competent Authority is quoted in the communication dated December 26, 1985 Annexure 6 to the writ petition. A perusal of the same would indicate that the Competent Authority had to consider in the meeting the question of suspension of the authorisation certificate by the Regional Manager, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Ghaziabad, along with the representation made by the petitioner under the Regulation 17(iii) of the U.P. Motor Vehicles (Special Provision) Regulations, 1976. It has been mentioned in the order that the representation given to the Secretary along with the decision taken by him on the representation was perused by the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority further expressed its agreement with the decision given by the Secretary and expressed its concern over the report submitted by the Regional Manager, Meerut - Ghaziabad and ultimately took the decision to cancel the authorisation certificate. 3. The Competent Authority further expressed its agreement with the decision given by the Secretary and expressed its concern over the report submitted by the Regional Manager, Meerut - Ghaziabad and ultimately took the decision to cancel the authorisation certificate. 3. On hearing the learned counsels for the parties we find considerable force in the challenge made by the petitioner against the decision taken by the Competent Authority communicated to the petitioner through communication dated December 26, 1985 by the Secretary of the Competent Authority. First of all it has been noted earlier that in the meeting only the question of suspension of the authorisation certificate along with the representation given by the petitioner under the Regulation 17(iii) of the Regulations, 1976 was subject matter of consideration learned Standing Counsel, who had record of the proceeding, conceded that there was no Agenda for consideration of the question of cancellation of the authorisation certificate. It again appears that the Competent Authority took it as if the representation was made to the Secretary of the Competent Authority for the decision. In this connection we may point out that under the Regulation 17(iii) the representation is made to the Competent Authority. It is only presented before the Secretary of the Competent Authority. The Secretary is authorised to pass only interim order if necessary in the circumstances of the case. It is further provided that such an order shall be placed in the next meeting of the Competent Authority but here it appears that the Secretary of the Competent Authority had himself taken a decision as has been stated in the decision taken by the Competent Authority itself. A copy of the order dated December 3, 1985 passed by the Secretary has been filed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. The learned counsel for the State has admitted that this order was passed by the Secretary only on the question of grant of interim relief and as a matter of fact the Secretary had granted interim relief by renewing authorisation certificate till December 17, 1985 as next meeting was scheduled to be held on December 18, 1985. It is no doubt that the Secretary had granted interim relief but Annexure 5 does not contain any such order. It may have been granted by means of some separate order. Annexure 5 is an order passed on the merits of the representation made by the petitioner. It is no doubt that the Secretary had granted interim relief but Annexure 5 does not contain any such order. It may have been granted by means of some separate order. Annexure 5 is an order passed on the merits of the representation made by the petitioner. The order has been passed by the Secretary negating the plea raised by the petitioner. This is a sort of decision taken by the Secretary which, no doubt, he has ordered to be placed in the next meeting of the Competent Authority. The Competent Authority in the next meeting agreed with the decision taken by the Secretary on the representation and has heavily relied upon it besides taking into consideration some other reports of the Regional Manager, Meerut and Ghaziabad but there is not a word mentioned about the case of the petitioner taken in the representation against the alleged reports by the Regional Manager. It is conceded on behalf of the State that the question of cancellation of the authorisation certificate was not on the Agenda. The representation is made to the Competent Authority under Regulation 17(iii) of the Regulations. It is only presented before the Secretary. The Secretary will have no powers under Regulation 17(iii) to take decision on the representation of the holder of the authorisation certificate. As indicated earlier we find that the Competent Authority took it as if the representation was made to the Secretary who had taken decision in the matter. The Competent Authority again appears to have heavily relied upon the decision of the Secretary. It shows that the Competent Authority has not applied its mind independently to the question of suspension of the authorisation certificate and the representation made by the petitioner against it. It is also not clear how the Competent Authority took decision and considered the question of cancellation of the authorisation certificate instead of confining itself to the question of suspension on authorisation certificate. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that his application for renewal which was made by him well within time fulfilling all other requirements as provided under the Regulations has not been disposed of so far. This position has not been disputed by the learned Standing Counsel. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that his application for renewal which was made by him well within time fulfilling all other requirements as provided under the Regulations has not been disposed of so far. This position has not been disputed by the learned Standing Counsel. Since the Regional Manager, Ghaziabad had only suspended the certificate till the date it was valid the Competent Authority should also have considered the application for renewal which was validly made by the petitioner within the prescribed period, which deserved to be considered on merits on the expiry of the period of suspension. 4. In view of the discussion held above we are of the view that the Competent Authority failed to apply its mind in taking the impugned decision. It further failed to perform its duty by not disposing of the application for renewal of the authorisation certificate moved by the petitioner. It was also not appropriate to take the decision of cancellation of the authorisation certificate while this matter was not on the Agenda. In the result the decision taken by the Competent Authority cancelling the authorisation certificate of the petitioner is set aside and we direct the Competent Authority to consider the question of suspension of the authorisation certificate in the light of the representation made by the petitioner along with his application for renewal of his authorisation certificate in the next meeting which is scheduled to be held. The opposite party No. 1 shall also inform to the petitioner of the date of the meeting in which the matter is to be considered. 5. The writ petition is thus allowed with the observation made above and the order dated 26th December, 1985 contained in Annexure 6, passed by the Competent Authority (opposite party No. 1) is hereby quashed with the above directions. However, there will be no order as to costs.