R. A. SHARMA, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER was holding a permanent stage carriage permit on Dheotisherpur-Amroha route (hereinafter referred to as route ). This permit was cancelled by Regional Transport Authority, Moradabad (hereinafter referred to as R. T. A.) under Section 60 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, by an order dated 22-4-1987, against which the petitioner filed an appeal, which was also dismissed by State Transport Appellate Tribunal, U. P. It is against these orders that the petitioner has filed this writ petition. ( 2 ) ON 2-1-1986 the bus of the petitioner was plying under the aforesaid permit, which was checked and following defects and short-comings were noticed. 1. Entire body of the vehicle was damaged. 2. Door of the vehicle was broken. 3. Windows were without pans. 4. Wind-screen glass broken. 5. Hand-break not fitted. 6. Play in the sterring was more than 45% 7. Fitness suspended, if valid. 8. All the seats broken. 9. R. C. and fitness certificates not produced on demand. 10. Proof of the deposit of passenger-tax not shown on demand. 11. Fare table was not valid. 12. Rs. 3. 75 was being charged as fare from Dhaneura to Amroha. ( 3 ) IT appears that the petitioner did not make good the deficiency, detected earlier and when the vehicle was checked again on 7-4-1986 it was found in the same condition. The R. T. A. accordingly issued notice under Section 60 and after hearing the petitioner his permit was cancelled. Appeal filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed by State Transport Appellate Tribunal, as mentioned above. The Appellate Tribunal while dismissing the appeal has held that body of the petitioners bus was absolutely broken and had been shattered by constant use without repairs causing great hardship to the travelling public. Tribunal has further observed that no operator has a right to keep his bus in shabby condition and pose risk for human lives. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioners bus was having valid registration and fitness certificates and, as such, he was entitled to ply it and his permit cannot be cancelled so long as the vehicle carry valid fitness and registration certificates. It is not possible to agree with this submission of the learned counsel. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioners bus was having valid registration and fitness certificates and, as such, he was entitled to ply it and his permit cannot be cancelled so long as the vehicle carry valid fitness and registration certificates. It is not possible to agree with this submission of the learned counsel. An operator is not entitled to ply his bus in public place merely because it was registered and was having a fitness certificate unless the bus is sound and roadworthy. It is one of the conditions mentioned in Section 48 (3) (x) of the old Act and Section 72 (2) (xi) of the new Act, which is imposed in almost all the permits, that the operator shall maintain specified standards of comfort and cleanliness in the vehicle. Section 59 of the old Act and Section 84 of new Act have imposed a condition in every permit that the vehicle at all time is so maintained as to comply with the requirement of Chapter V and Rules framed thereunder. That apart the object of the Motor Vehicles Act and permits issued thereunder is to provide travelling facilities without exposing public to risk of human lives. If the vehicle is kept in a shabby condition incapable of giving reasonable comfortable travelling facilities to the public, the purpose for which permits are granted stands frustrated. The condition of the vehicle of the petitioner, as mentioned hereinbefore, was definitely not roadworthy and as such R. T. A. was justified to cancel the permit and Appellate Tribunal was perfectly right in upholding the order passed by R. T. A. while dismissing the appeal. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the observations made in the appellate order may jeopardise the petitioners right in getting a permit in future. Apprehension of the petitioner does not appear to be justified as whatever observations are made in the impugned order of Appellate Tribunal, they are in respect of the vehicle, covered under the permit in question. In case the petitioner applies for fresh permit on any route and produce a good conditioned vehicle, there is no reason to believe that his case will not be considered by Transport Authorities in accordance with law. ( 6 ) THE writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed. .