JUDGMENT A. N. Varma, J. 1. The petitioner, as existing operator of the route in question, assails the validity of an amendment made in Rule 48 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1940. The relief claimed is that the impugned notification amending Rule 48 be quashed and the Regional Transport Authority, Dehradun be directed not to give effect to the same. 2. First, a glance at the relevant statutory provisions. Rule 48, as it stood prior to its amendment, read as follows : "48. Applications-Publication of-(a) In addition to the requirements of sub-section (3) of Section 57 of the Act, upon receipt of an application for a stage carriage permit or public carrier's permit the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority or of the State Transport Authority, as the case may be, shall post a copy of the application, together with the notice of the date before which representation may be submitted and of the date appointed for consideration on a suitable notice board situated on the premises of the Authority. b) It shall be sufficient compliance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 57 of the Act, if the particulars specified in the sub-section, are published in the Uttar Pradesh Gazette, not less than fifteen days before the date appointed for the receipt of representation. b) It shall be sufficient compliance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 57 of the Act, if the particulars specified in the sub-section, are published in the Uttar Pradesh Gazette, not less than fifteen days before the date appointed for the receipt of representation. (c) If upon publication of particulars of an application in respect of a stage carriage permit or of a public carrier's permit as aforesaid no representation is received in connection therewith within the specified period, the application may, if the Chairman so directs be submitted for the decision of the Authority by procedure by circulation." By the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Forty-eight Amendment) Rules, 1987 which came into force on August 13, 1987, the date on which the notification by which the rules were amended was published, clause (b) of Rule 48 was substituted by the follows :- "(b) It shall be sufficient compliance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 57 of the Act, if (i) the particulars specified in the said sub-section, are published in two Hindi daily newspapers having wide circulation throughout Uttar Pradesh not less than 15 days before the date appointed for the receipt of the representation ; (ii) the information regarding the publication of the applications or permit :- (A) made to the State Transport Authority, are published in at least one daily newspaper in the area of each Regional Transport Authority having wide circulation in it, and (B) made to a Regional Transport Authority are published in at least one daily newspaper having wide circulation in it. (iii) the notice regarding information of publication of particulars of the applications for permit is exhibited on the notice board of the office of the Secretaries of the State Transport Authority and all the Regional Transport Authorities and ; (iv) the copies of the newspapers referred to in sub-clause (i) are made available in the office of the Secretaries of the State Transport Authority and all the Regional Transport Authorities for inspection free of cost, during office hours on each working day ". 3. 3. The contention of Sri A. D. Saunders, appearing for the petitioner, was that the combined effect of sub-section (3) of Section 57 and clause (b), as it stood prior to its substitution, was that the publication of the applications in the Uttar Pradesh Gazette for the grant of permits under Section 57 was mandatory and inasmuch as the impugned notification amending clause (b) of the Rule 48 provides for doing away with the mandatory requirement and substitutes it by publication in newspapers, the same must be held to be beyond the rule making powers conferred on the State Government under Section 68. 4. We are unable to agree. So far as sub-section (3) of Section 57 is concerned, it does not expressly or by implication provide that the applications or the date fixed for filing representations in connection therewith and the time and place at which the applications and representations received will be considered, must be published in the gazette. On the contrary, it merely provides that the publication shall be made ' in the prescribed manner '. The manner in which the publication shall take place has, therefore, to be gathered from the rules which have been framed under the Act. In the exercise of rule making power the mode of publication prescribed under clause (a) of Rule 48 was that the Secretary of the Regional Transport Authority or the State Transport Authority shall post a copy of the application together with the notice of the date before which representation may be submitted and of the date appointed for consideration on a suitable notice board situate on the premises of the Authority. Clause (A) of Rule 48 has been left untouched by the amendment. We then turn to the unamended clause (b) of Rule 48 on which learned counsel mainly based his submission. This clause provided that it shall be sufficient compliance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 57 of the Act if the particulars specified in the above sub-section are published in the gazette. This clause cannot, however we may stretch its meaning, be regarded as having provided for publication in the Uttar Pradesh Gazette necessary or mandatory in each case. All that this clause stated was that it shall be sufficient compliance if those particulars are published in the gazette. This clause cannot, however we may stretch its meaning, be regarded as having provided for publication in the Uttar Pradesh Gazette necessary or mandatory in each case. All that this clause stated was that it shall be sufficient compliance if those particulars are published in the gazette. The ordinary meaning of the word 'sufficient' is 'sufficing enough', 'equal to any end or purpose'. 5. Each of these meanings leads to the inevitable conclusion that the simple legislative intent behind clause (b) was that if the particulars specified in Section 57 (3) were published in the Gazette, that would be regarded as ' sufficient compliance ' with the law, that is, Section 57 (3) and its requirement of publication under clause (a) was not followed strictly or suffered from some defect. A requirement that a certain procedure shall be treated as ' sufficient compliance ' with the requirements of law should not be confused with the requirement which is mandatory or obligatory in each case. 6. The very substratum, therefore, of the learned counsel's submission that there was some kind of mandatory requirement either in Section 57 (3) or the unamended clause (b) of Rule 48 that the particulars specified in sub-section (3) of Section 57 must be published in the Uttar Pradesh Gazette, disappears being entirely unsupported by the provisions of the Act or the Rules framed thereunder. Sub-section (3) of Section 5 having expressly left the mode of publication to be prescribed by rules, it was open to the State Government to alter the mode by amending clause (b) of Rule 48 in the exercise of its undoubted rule making power. Learned counsel did not submit that the impugned amendment is not covered by clause (cc) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 68 which deals with the subject of the manner in which and the time within which every application for a permit shall be published as required by sub-section (3) of Section 57. The impugned notification is unartubly covered by clause (cc) of Section 68 (2). This Court, therefore, holds that the impugned notification travels neither beyond Section 57 (3) nor the rule-making power of the State Government. 7. The impugned notification is unartubly covered by clause (cc) of Section 68 (2). This Court, therefore, holds that the impugned notification travels neither beyond Section 57 (3) nor the rule-making power of the State Government. 7. Learned counsel next attempted to argue that publication in the Gazette has always been regarded as the most satisfactory mode of notifying the affected section of the public and consequently its replacement by publication in the newspapers and other procedure prescribed under the amended clause (b) cannot be treated as valid. 8. The submission is devoid of any merit. Publication in the Gazette has been replaced by publication in two Hindi daily newspapers having wide circulation throughout the State. In addition, the information regarding the publication of applications or permits is further required to be published in at least one daily newspaper in the area of each Regional Transport Authority having wide circulation in it. Further the notice regarding information of publication of particulars of the applications for permit is also required to be exhibited on the notice board of the office of the Secretaries of the State Transport Authority and of the Regional Transport Authorities. There is then the requirement of making the copies of newspapers available for inspection free of cast in the office of the Secretaries of the Regional Transport Authorities and the State Transport Authority. We cannot conceive of a more elaborate and satisfactory mode of publication of the applications and the dates referred to in sub-section (3) of section 57. We also do not accept the sweeping statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner that publication in the gazette is the only valid or satisfactory method of notifying to the public. In any case, the Legislature itself not having laid down publication in the gazette as a mandatory requirement in sub-section (3) and it having specifically left the mode of publication to be prescribed by the rules, we see no illegality in the impugned notification in any view. 9. Lastly, learned counsel made a feeble attempt to submit that in the present case the publication was not so wide as is required by the amended clause (b) of Rule 48. The allegations made in this connection are entirely inadequate to justify the conclusion that the procedure laid down by law was not scrupulously followed by the authorities. 9. Lastly, learned counsel made a feeble attempt to submit that in the present case the publication was not so wide as is required by the amended clause (b) of Rule 48. The allegations made in this connection are entirely inadequate to justify the conclusion that the procedure laid down by law was not scrupulously followed by the authorities. The presumption of the official acts having been performed duly and properly, has not been rebutted by the petitioner. 10. The petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.