Order Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.Y. Eqbal, Government Advocate and with their consent, this application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 2. The petitioner in this writ application has moved for quashing an order dated 7.3.1991 as well as the order dated 21.4.1994. It appears that a letter of authority was issued to the petitioner for establishment of testing centre under sub-section (2) of section 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The said authority (Annexure-1) is valid upto 13.5. 1996. A notification was issued to the petitioner to show cause regarding the charges mentioned therein The petitioner filed his show cause in the month of March/April, 1993. In the show cause, the petitioner denied all the charges levelled against him. No order was passed for about one year and on 21.4.1994, the impugned order dated 21.4.1994 (A.nnexure-2) was issued. In the impugned order (Annexure-2), letter No. 1874 dated 20.3.1991 was taken into consideration. It is stated that the aforesaid letter dated 20.3.1991 was not circulated or served upon any person and as such the petitioner could not know the restrictions imposed therein. However, letter No. 1561 dated 7.3.1991 has been annexed as annexure-2 to this petition which conveys the decision of the State Government to the effect that a testing centre will have no jurisdiction outside the district in which such testing centre is situated. 3. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha has contended that in the letter of authority, there is no such ban or restriction as mentioned in Annexure-3. The petitioner, it is contended, has not violated the conditions laid down in the letter of authority, inasmuch as the testing certificates were granted to different motor vehicles which were registered outside the district of Ranchi and taxes were paid there. It is also contended that the letter dated 20.3.1991, violation of which has been made one of the grounds for passing the impugned order, was never made known to the petitioner and as such this ground has no leg to stand. Secondly, it is submitted that the letter of authority can be cancelled only when there is violation of Rule 69 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1989) and not otherwise. Secondly, it is submitted that the letter of authority can be cancelled only when there is violation of Rule 69 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1989) and not otherwise. The impugned order does not contain any of the grounds as mentioned in Rule 69. Referring to Rule 73 of the Rule 1989, it has been submitted that the petitioner has accepted application for grant and/or renewal of fitness certificates after being satisfied that a taxation certificate has been accompanied with such an application. Mr. Sinha further contended that the question as to whether an appeal will lie against such an order of cancellation is subjudice before this Court in CWJC No. 3035 of 1993(R). Referring to Annexure-4, the order dated 12.10.1993 passed in the aforesaid writ application, it is argued that while, admitting the aforesaid writ application, interim order has been issued. 4. Mr. Iqbal, Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that in view of section 56(4), the letter of authority can be cancelled by the authority concerned and the ground for cancellation in the instant case is covered by Rule 63(3) (iv) read with Rule 69(b) of the Rules, 1989. It is further submitted that the petitioner's testing station, having knowledge of the provisions of the Act and the Rules, has granted fitness certificates to the defaulters, of vehicles and the vehicles registered outside Ranchi and as such violated the direction contained in the letter dated 7.3.1991. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioner having an alternative remedy by way of appeal under Rule 70 cannot invoke, the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 5. Reply to counter affidavit has been filed annexing some xerox copies of the tax tokens as Annexure-5 series. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the authority did not take into consideration that all the vehicles, numbers of which have been mentioned in the impugned order with regard to the non-payment of taxes in fact paid taxes as required under law. 6. In order to appreciate rival stand of the parties, it is necessary to have a glance to the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. 7. Section 56 of the Act contemplates establishment of authorized testing stations. 6. In order to appreciate rival stand of the parties, it is necessary to have a glance to the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules. 7. Section 56 of the Act contemplates establishment of authorized testing stations. It, inter alia, provides that unless the transport vehicle carries a certificate of fitness issued by the prescribed authority or by an authorised testing station, the said transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purpose of section 39. Where prescribed authority or authorised testing station refused to issue such certificates, reason for such refusal has to be given to the owner of the vehicle : Section 56(2) : The 'authorised testing station' referred to in sub-section (1) means a vehicle service station or public or private garage which the State Government, having regard to the experience, training and ability of operators of such station or garage and the testing equipment and the testing personnel therein may specify in accordance with the rules made by the Central Government for regulation and control of such stations or garages." Sub-section (4) of Section 56 contemplates that the prescribed authority may for reasons to be recorded in writing cancel a certificate of fitness at any time, if satisfied that the vehicles to which it relates no longer complies with all the requirements of this Act and the Rules made thereunder; and on such cancellation, the certificate of registration of the vehicle and any permit granted in respect of the vehicle under Chapter V shall be deemed to be suspended until a new certificate of fitness has been obtained. Sub-section (5) of Section 56 of the Act reads thus : "(5) A certificate of fitness issued under this Act shall, while it remains effective, be valid throughout India." 8. From the aforesaid provisions, it appears that a testing station is required to grant certificates of fitness after complying with certain formalities. The authority can cancel such certificate only if it is found that the vehicle concerned has not complied with all the requirements of the Act and the Rules. The concerned authority, however, is required to give reasons in writing for such cancellation. It further appears that a certificate of fitness so granted be valid throughout India during the period mentioned in the certificate itself. 9. The concerned authority, however, is required to give reasons in writing for such cancellation. It further appears that a certificate of fitness so granted be valid throughout India during the period mentioned in the certificate itself. 9. Thus, in our view the provision is only meant for grant of fitness certificate by the testing station and cancellation of certificate given to a vehicle by the authority concerned. 10. However, Rule 63 of the Rules 1989 contemplates regulation and control of authorized testing stations. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 63 reads as follows : "63(3). A registering authority shall, when considering an application for the grant or renewal of a letter of authority, have regard to the following matters, namely : (a) The applicant or at least, one of the members of the staff employed by him for the inspection of transport vehicles for the purpose of issue or renewal of certificates of fitness possesses the following minimum qualification : (i) a diploma in automobile engineering or mechanical engineering or an equivalent qualification; (ii) experience of minimum service of five years in an automobile workshop undertaking repairs of heavy vehicles, heavy passenger motor vehicles, medium motor vehicles and light motor-vehicles; (iii) a driving licence to drive motor cycle, heavy passenger motor vehicles and heavy goods vehicles with a minimum experience of not less than five years; (iv) through knowledge of the Act and the rules made thereunder especially the Chapters relating to registration of the motor vehicles and construction, equipment and maintenance of motor vehicles; ……….. ….. ……….. ….. (g) …… ….. Rule 63(4) reads thus : “The registering authority shall also, when considering and application under this rule, take into consideration the fact that the setting up of the authorised testing station will improve the availability of testing in the area both in relation to the number of vehicles and proximity to such facilities." 11. Rule 63 thus lays down certain conditions for issuance of a letter of authority by the registering authority. The authority must be satisfied with certain prerequisites before granting letter of authority. In such view of the matter, argument of Mr. Iqbal that the petitioner was required to have thorough knowledge of the Act and the Rules and that having not found the impugned order cannot be set aside is devoid of merit. The authority must be satisfied with certain prerequisites before granting letter of authority. In such view of the matter, argument of Mr. Iqbal that the petitioner was required to have thorough knowledge of the Act and the Rules and that having not found the impugned order cannot be set aside is devoid of merit. We have already noticed that those are the pre-requisites which were to be taken into consideration by the registering authority before issuing letter of authority for establishment of testing centre. 12. It appears that there is only one provision in the Rule under which letter of authority can be suspended or cancelled and that is Rule 69, which reads as follows : "69. Power of registering authority to suspend or cancel the letter of authority or forfeit security deposit. - (1) If the registering authority is satisfied after giving the holder of a letter of authority an opportunity of being heard, that he has : (a) failed to maintain the equipment, machinery and apparatus referred to in sub-clause(c) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 63 in good conditions; or (b) failed to comply with the other requirements laid down in sub-rule (3) of Rule 63; or (c) failed to observe correct standards of testing before granting or renewing certificate of fitness as noticed at the time of test checking referred to in Rule 67 or the frequency of accident involving transport vehicles covered by certificates of fitness granted or renewed by the authorised testing station attributable to any mechanical defect of the vehicle, it may: (i) suspend the letter of authority for a specified period; or (ii) cancel the letter of authority; or (iii) order forfeiture of security deposit furnished by the authorised testing station." 13. It is not disputed by the learned Government Advocate that when specific grounds for suspension or cancellation have been incorporated in the statute, those grounds only can be the basis for suspension or cancellation and no other extraneous ground(s) can be taken into consideration. 14. From the impugned order dated 21.4.1994 (Annexure-2), it is clear that none of the grounds as contemplated under Rule 69 has been made the basis for cancelling the letter of authority. 14. From the impugned order dated 21.4.1994 (Annexure-2), it is clear that none of the grounds as contemplated under Rule 69 has been made the basis for cancelling the letter of authority. In the operative portion of the impugned order, it has been merely stated that the letter of authority is being cancelled on the basis of the irregularities committed by the petitioner and as such there is violation of rule 69 of the Rule 1969 as well as the directions contained in the letter No. 1874 dated 20.3.1991. Mr. Iqbal, however, contends that as the petitioner has violated the directions of the State Government as contained in the letter dated 7.3.1991 (Annexure-3), the authority was justified in cancelling the letter of authority of petitioner. From the impugned order, it appears that for such cancellation, the authority did not consider the letter dated 7.3.1991 inasmuch as from the operative portion of the order, it appears that the letter No. 1874 dated 20.3.1991 was taken into consideration. Moreover, the letter No. 1874 dated 20.3.1991 has not been produced before us on behalf of the State. From perusal of Annexure-3 which has been relied by Mr. Iqbal, it appears that the said letter was issued by the State Government directing that in view of sub-clause (iv) of Rule 63 of the Rules, 1989, no testing station will have the jurisdiction out of its own district within which the said station is situated. 15. We have already noticed the provisions of Sub-rule (iv) of Rule 63(3)(a). We have also noticed that sub-rule (3) of Rule 63 relates to a registering authority and not to a testing station. Even if it is contended that the licensee/letter of authority holder should have thorough knowledge of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, this knowledge is a pre-condition for obtaining the letter of authority and it is the duty of the registering authority to take a decision on this aspect of the matter while granting the letter of authority. In our view, the holder of the letter of authority cannot be held responsible for violation of clause (iv) of sub-rule (3)(a) of Rule 63 of the Rules 1989. In this connection, we may refer to Rule 51 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1992 which, inter alia, contemplates, conditions for issuance, renewal and cancellation of certificates of fitness. In our view, the holder of the letter of authority cannot be held responsible for violation of clause (iv) of sub-rule (3)(a) of Rule 63 of the Rules 1989. In this connection, we may refer to Rule 51 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1992 which, inter alia, contemplates, conditions for issuance, renewal and cancellation of certificates of fitness. This rule, in our view, gives jurisdiction to the competent authority to renew, grant or cancel the certificate of fitness in respect of a particular vehicle. This does not relate to the cancellation of letter of authority granted in favour of a testing station. No other rules or provisions have been brought to our notice on behalf of the State to show that except for violation of the conditions as laid down in under Rule 69, the letter of authority can be cancelled. 16. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the impugned order is based on non-existing grounds, inasmuch as nothing has been pointed out to us that the impugned order was passed in violation of any clause of rule 69 of the Rules 1989. It is a well established principle of law that when there are provisions in the statute for cancellation of the licence, licence can be cancelled only for violation of these conditions and not otherwise. We have already discussed above that the impugned order (Annexure-2) does not indicate as to which condition laid down in rule 69 has been violated by the petitioner and, therefore, in our view, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 17. In the result, this writ application is allowed and the impugned order dated 21.4.1994 (Annexure-2) is quashed. However, the authority concerned may take an appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law and by observing the principles of natural justice.