Judgment : S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has challenged the proceeding of State Transport authority, Jharkhand, Ranchi (for short transport Authority) dated 28th June, 2003 published on 17th July, 2003 so far it relates to Chaibasa to Bokaro via Tata Purulia route, whereby and whereunder the Transport Authority decided to take up all the applications even those which were not in accordance with the notice and decided to grant interstate stage carriage permit for the route in question in favour of 3rd respondent, Pawan Kumar Kejriwal. ( 2 ) THE brief fact of the case of the petitioner is that the Transport Authority, jharkhand, Ranchi published a notice in the newspaper "hindustan" on 25th January, 2003 calling for applications for interstate stage carriage permit for 25 routes including route in question. Apart from fees for application and separate fees for permanent stage carriage permit, the applicants were asked to submit certain documents along with the applications, such as : (1) Documents relating to vehicle. (2) Registration book. (3) Fitness Certificate. (4) Tax clearance certificate etc. For preference, the applicants were asked to produce documents, such as: (a) Educational qualification. (b) Backward/scheduled Caste/scheduled Tribe certificate. All the applicants were also asked to submit an affidavit proposing a clash free time table. It was also made clear that incomplete or defective applications shall not be considered by the Transport Authority. The applications were to be submitted within 15 days i. e. by 8th February, 2003 from the date of advertisement. ( 3 ) ACCORDING to petitioner, the applications of all the applicants were taken up for consideration in June, 2003. The petitioner while pointed out the defective applications including the applications preferred by one shankar Yadav and 3rd respondent, Pawan kumar Kejriwal whose buses were not registered till 20th June, 2003, opposed their candidature. As the respondents proceeded with for selection for grant of permanent stage carriage permit for the route in question, he moved before this Court in W. P. (C) no. 3278 of 2003, which was not entertained at that stage and disposed of by an order dated 15h July, 2003 being premature. It is alleged that the Transport Authority, Jharkhand in the meantime, took decision in its meeting held on 28th June, 2003 published on 17th July, 2003 to grant permit in favour of the 3rd respondent. 3278 of 2003, which was not entertained at that stage and disposed of by an order dated 15h July, 2003 being premature. It is alleged that the Transport Authority, Jharkhand in the meantime, took decision in its meeting held on 28th June, 2003 published on 17th July, 2003 to grant permit in favour of the 3rd respondent. ( 4 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner submitted that the application preferred by 3rd respondent , Pawan Kumar Kejriwal being defective, not in conformity with the terms of the advertisement dated 25th January, 2003 should not have been entertained. The following defects were pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner. " (1) No registration paper of bus, nor any paper relating to bus was filed by 3rd respondent along with the application. (2) No attested document was produced by 3rd respondent to claim preference over other applicants on the ground of displaced person. And (3) Affidavit in support of clash free time table was not filed by him. ( 5 ) THE Transport Authority, Jharkhand has taken plea that all the applications were opened in the meeting in which respective contenders, who were also called, attended. All the contenders/applicants participated and different views were expressed by them. As most of them agreed for consideration of all the applications whereas few of them disagreed with the aforesaid proposal, after taking views of the majority contenders/ applicants , the Transport Authority decided to consider all the applications. If the application of any one or other contender was not strictly fulfilling the terms of notice, they were allowed to remove the defects at the time or before taking a final decision and treated as defect-free applications. The applications of 3rd respondent was defective and he was not fulfilling all the terms and conditions as per the notice dated 25th January, 2003 till the last date of submission of application has not been disputed by any of the respondents. The 3rd respondent has also not disputed that no affidavit copy of clash free time table was submitted by him, nor any attested copy of certificate of displaced person was submitted to claim preference. The 3rd respondent has also not disputed that no affidavit copy of clash free time table was submitted by him, nor any attested copy of certificate of displaced person was submitted to claim preference. ( 6 ) COUNSEL for the 3rd respondent while referred to different provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short M. V. Act, 1988) and Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1992 (for short M. V. Rules, 1992), submitted that there was no necessity to submit documents relating to registration of the vehicle along with the application. Under Rule 73, any application for permit required to be filed in p. S. T. S. A. Form whereas as per Rule 74, the fees to be paid along with the application. At column No. 27 of P. S. T. S. A. Form, if the applicant is in possession of the vehicle, is required to disclose the registration number but if the applicant does not possess any vehicle then he is to arrange and procure vehicle within a month from the date of sanction of application and is to produce certificate of registration before the Authority as per Rule 78 of M. V. Rules, 1992. Further plea taken by the 3rd respondent is that the petitioner was also not fulfilling all the conditions and had not filed any paper with regard to 2003 model bus along with the application, which was filed later on. ( 7 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chandrashekhar", reported in (1997) 4 SCC 18 and the case of "shankar K. Mandal v. State of Bihar", reported in 2003 AIR Jhar hcr 893 : AIR 2003 SC 4043 to suggest that the last date to submit application, as fixed in the advertisement, should be treated as the cut-off date to find out eligibility but such submission cannot be accepted as the cases aforesaid relate to recruitment/appointment in the services of the State which cannot be made without any advertisement whereas under Section 80 (1) of M. V. Act, 1988, a person is entitled to apply for permit even in absence of any advertisement at any time, and there is no legal impediment for the Transport Authority to decide the applications suo motu. In the case of "smt. In the case of "smt. Sarda Mohanka v. State of Bihar", C. W. J. C. No. 7130 of 1991, a Division Bench of the Patna High Court by its decision dated 31st January. 1994 held as follows :". . . . . . . . . in our view, in absence of any statutory provision to advertise the route for grant of permit it is difficult for us to hold that the order, granting permit in favour of respondent No. 3, is illegal. " ( 8 ) THE petitioner also filed a suo motu application under Section 80 (1) of the M. V. Act, 1988 for grant of permanent permit on 14th Sept. , 2002 for the route in question is one of the example in the present case. If any person has a right to apply suo motu under Section 80 (1) of the M. V. Act 1988 for grant of permit for a route, at any time, the authorities are bound to consider it. There cannot be a limitation to file such application or documents. Therefore, the date on which the Transport Authority considers the claim for grant of permit, it should be in accordance with law. If by the time applicant rectifies defect, if any, in accordance with law, it is open to the Transport Authority to consider such application along with others. Under the statutory rule, if it is open to an applicant to give details of the vehicle or produce the documents relating to vehicle or the registration number of the vehicle within one month from the date of sanction, such right cannot be curtailed by any advertisement, nor any application can be rejected on the ground of non-production of documents relating to the vehicle or registration of vehicle. Under M. V. Act, 1988 or M. V. Rules, 1992, there being no provision made to give preference over another, if equally situated, it is always open to the Transport Authority to prescribe a guideline to give preference to an applicant over the other. ( 9 ) IN the present case , as there is no procedural defect in the proceeding of Transport Authority dated 28th June, 2003 published on 17th July, 2003, it requires no interference. The writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .