H. G. BALAKRISHNA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is the holder of a stage carriage permit applied for renewal within the prescribed time limit in accordance with the rules. In his application, the petitioner had asked for renewal Of the permit for a period of five years and not for three years. However, the 1st respondent renewed the permit only for a period of three years. Therefore, the petitioner is affected. ( 2 ) THE only point to be considered is whether the first respondent was in error in not granting the renewal of 5,years. in a similar set of facts, this Court has considered the question in W P. No. 11323/1987 on 27th October 1987 in the case of C. R. Gowda v. Karnatska State transport Appellate Tribunal and another. After detailed consideration the Court held as follows :-"in the course of one year, there are six breaches committed by the petitioner. It is not possible to hold that these breaches are not relevant for the purpose of considering whether the permit should be renewed for a period of 3 years or 5 years. These breaches are relevant even for the purpose of granting a permit. If that be so they are relevant at the stage of renewing the permit. It is even possible on the basis of such breaches, if they are serious in nature, to refuse the renewal of the permit. Therefore, they can be taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding as to whether the renewal of the permit should be for a period of 3 years or 5 vears. That being so, it is not possible to hold that the Regional transport Authority or the Tribunal has committed an error in limiting the renewal for a period of 3 years. The impugned decisions are based upon the relevant consideration, namely the history sheet of the petitioner. Hence, it is not possible to hold that the discretion has not been exercised judicially. That being so, there is no ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal or that of the Regional Transport authority". in the instant case, the petitioner has committed five breaches admittedly. In the light of the past conduct of the petitioner, the Regional Transport Authority made the following observation while passing the impugned order. That being so, there is no ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal or that of the Regional Transport authority". in the instant case, the petitioner has committed five breaches admittedly. In the light of the past conduct of the petitioner, the Regional Transport Authority made the following observation while passing the impugned order. "having regard to the history sheet of the applicant wherein he has violated conditions of permit five times including offences of overloading, it is resolved to renew the permit for a period of three years". ( 3 ) THIS reasoning was accepted by the karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore in Revision No. URP. No. 446/1986 vide Annexure B. I do not see any reason for taking a different view from what the learned Single Judge has taken in the case of C. R. Gowda v. Karnataka State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Another cited above. Lord Denning M. R observed,"the decision of a statutory body is never unfettered. It is a discretion which is to be exercised according to law. That means at least this : the statutory body must be guided by relevant considerations and not by irrelevant. If its decision is influenced by extraneous consideration which it ought not to have taken into account, then the decision cannot stand. No matter that the st tutory body may have acted in gcod faith ; nevertheless the decision will be set aside. . . . . . . . ". (1971) 2 Q. B. 175 (190) Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union. it is no doubt true that discretion ought not to be arbitrary but must be regulated by reason and law No system rooted in the rule of law could permit untrammelled discretion as otherwise it would be a contradiction in terms. In the instant case, it can be safely said that the authority has exercised sound discretion. The discretion of the grant of the renewal of permit either for a period of 3 years or for a period of 5 years is given to the statutory authority under the Motor Vehicles act and that discretion in the instant case has been exercised bonafide and on relevant considerations and therefore, does not call for interference. Obviously, the impugned order is not hit by the doctrine of Proportionality. Obviously, the impugned order is not hit by the doctrine of Proportionality. ( 4 ) THEREFORE, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this Writ Petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. --- *** --- .