ORDER 1. With consent heard and finally disposed of. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - a permanent stage carriage permit holder has challenged the order dated 16.07.2012 passed by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ujjain (for short Secretary, RTA) as also the order dated 01.10.2012 passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal M.P. Gwalior (for short, the Tribunal), in Appeal No. 118/2012. 3. Briefly stated, the petitioner is holding a Permanent Stage Carriage Permit No. SCP 58/2008 for the route Amarpura to Ratlam which is valid up to 31.10.2013. She had submitted an application seeking replacement of vehicle authorized by the aforesaid permit by another vehicle. Her application was considered and rejected by the Secretary, RTA vide order dated 16.07.2012. 4. The said order passed by the Secretary, RTA was challenged by the petitioner in Appeal No. 118/2012 perferred under section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal by order dated 01.10.2012 dismissed the appeal affirming the order passed by the Secretary, RTA. Aggrived, the petitioner has filed this petition. 5. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that before passing the order dated 16.07.2012, the Secretary, RTA has not granted an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He also contended that the application for replacement of the vehicle submitted in form MP MV R - 58 under Rule 84 of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 (for short, Rules of 1994), ought to have been placed before the Regional Transport Authority, as the Competent Authority to consider and decide the said application, which was in regard to permanent permit, was the Regional Transport Authority and not the Secretary, RTA. It is also the case of the petitioner that while deciding the application, neither the Secretary, RTA nor the Tribunal has properly construed Rule 84 (2) (i) of the Rules of 1994. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the order passed by the Secretary, RTA as also the Tribunal, we are of the view that the orders passed by both the authorities are liable to be quashed. 7. 6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the order passed by the Secretary, RTA as also the Tribunal, we are of the view that the orders passed by both the authorities are liable to be quashed. 7. On a bare perusal of Rule 84 of the Rules of 1994, it is clear that such an application, which was for replacement of the vehicle authorized by the permanent permit, was to be considered and decided by the Regional Transport Authority, which had granted the permit and not by the Secretary, RTA. 8. In the present case, instead of placing the matter before the Regional Transport Authority for consideration and for taking the decision, it has been decided by the Secretary, RTA himself. In the circumstances, in our considered view, the order of the Secretary, RTA being wholly without jurisdiction, the same ought to have been set aside by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not gone into this aspect of the matter and has also not properly considered the relevant provisions of the Rules of 1994. 9. In the circumstances, we have no option but to quash the impugned orders passed by the Secretary, RTA and the Tribunal and we do so. 10. The matter is remitted to the Regional Transport Authority, Ujjain for deciding it afresh. Before passing any orders on the petitioner’s application, Regional Transport Authority, Ujjain shall give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and shall pass a reasoned order, uninfluenced by the view taken by the Tribunal or any observations made by this Court. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.